Ballot Initiatives 2012

Proposition 30 is necessary because thanks to a previous generation of voters we are stuck with a crazy requirement of 2/3 of the legislature to pass any kind of tax increase. With the Republicans all nailed down tight by the lunatic fringe in a ridiculous pledge imposed by Grover Norquist to not raise taxes ever, increasing taxes even in the fiscal emergency of the past few years outside of the initiative system is impossible. Governor Brown is staking his (third or fourth) political career on the passage of this initiative, and if it doesn’t pass our kids will endure another wave of cuts to education, ultimately sending them the message that education really isn’t a priority.

Proposition 30 is a merger of two previously competing initiatives designed to offset some of the revenue losses due to the past few years of economic contraction in order to fund education with temporary increases in personal income and sales taxes. It is being heavily pushed by Governor Brown in order to save the educational system from mandatory budget decreases estimated at $450.00 per student per year.

Proposition 30 would raise the taxes on everyone earning over $250,000 per year, at various rates which increase as the income increases. These increases would sunset after seven years. The sales tax would be increased by one quarter of one percent and would last four years. The intention is to raise about 6 billion dollars per year in order to offset anticipated cuts. The spending would be allocated 89 percent for K-12 and 11 percent for public colleges.

Since 2008 public education funding has been cut by over 20 billion dollars, bringing California to 47th out of the 50 states in terms of per capita spending on education. It continues a trend now over three decades of cut-backs which have led to dramatically increased classroom sizes, elimination of art and music programs, decreases in school hours, teacher lay-offs, etc. The anticipated shortfalls for this year may lead to severe reductions of school nurses and counselors, elimination of free school transportation, charging for after school programs, reduced funding for educational materials, and aggravation of all the problems listed above.

The state college system has helped to define the choice. The CSU Board of Trustees voted in favor of a 5 percent tuition hike effective in the spring if voters don’t pass Proposition 30. If the measure is passed, the current 9 percent tuition hike would be rescinded, and students would be reimbursed. The UC Regents are considering similar measures.

Proposition 38 is a competing measure which will raise taxes on everyone earning just over $7000 per year on a sliding scale. The taxes would sunset after 12 years. During first four years, 38 allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. 38 is obviously much more regressive than 30. It does guarantee that the money be spent on K-12 education, which is attractive on the face of it, but again really takes from the legislature the flexibility it needs to allocate resources according to the needs of the moment. It’s basically a measure being pushed by billionairess Molly Munger who has her own agenda which is out of touch with the people and organizations who have been working to mitigate these issues against Republican obstructionism and heavy corporate lobby.

Assuming both measures pass, the one with the most votes will prevail over the other. It is essential to vote yes on 30 and no on 38. Do not vote for 38 as a “back up.”

Proposition 31 – No

Prop 31 is probably the most incoherent initiative since the “Big Green” fiasco of the early 1990s. There’s really no definitive purpose behind the measure, which just seems to be a thrown-together collection of proposals about the budget process – I think – which might merit discussion on an individual basis, but which don’t really amount to a cohesive policy proposal.

Basically it would expand the budget cycle to two years. (Meh.) It would require that the legislature specify the revenue source of any projects involving more than 25 million dollars. (It sounds good, but it’s really a bad idea which reduces the legislature’s flexibility in reordering priorities, and would essentially require a 2/3 supermajority for every new project). It would prevent last minute amendments to bills by requiring that the bill be published in complete form three days before the vote. (Which would prevent some gamesmanship – fine). It gives the Governor certain powers to override the legislature with unilateral cuts. (Bad idea – the executive branch already has too much power – I never approved of the line-item veto, and I certainly don’t approve any other power given to the executive branch which allow for unilateral rewrites of one of the principle powers afforded the legislative branch). It requires performance evaluations for state and local programs. (Fine, whatever). It allows local governments to rewrite state regulations as it applies to them which can only be set aside if the legislature acts within 60 days. (Really bad idea!).

There are some other proposed “reforms” in this 8000 word bill, which even the proponents are having a hard time explaining its central purpose. The slogan? “Bringing accountability and transparency to California government.” That’s in their website masthead, right under “Yes on Proposition 31.”

It’s opposed by the League of Women Voters, the California Teacher’s Federation, and the League of Conservation Voters – all of whom are primarily concerned about the weakening of key regulations by relentless gamesmanship from local pols who would like to water down Prop 65 and other landmark state legislation. The Legislature would have to spend enormous time and resources in keeping track of and reversing badly conceived rewrites of state law, and risk serious lacking of consistency from one county to the next.

31 is a mess of a policy mix which really should be addressed in the context of legislative process – committees, hearings, testimony, reports, etc. Vote no.

More below the fold.

Proposition 32 – NO!!

The anti-labor forces won’t stop pushing this thing. 32 would prohibit payroll-deduction based political contributions from unions and corporations. Sounds balanced, right? It restricts both labor unions and corporations. So why aren’t corporations railing against the infringement of their rights? Probably because most corporations don’t use payroll-deduction funds to make political contributions because mandatory payroll deductions are illegal unless they go to benefits. When corporations donate, it comes from their revenue. It’s not rocket science. Will voters really fall for it?

The initiative allows for payroll deduction based political contributions upon written permission from the member, which has to be provided annually. This adds a cumbersome burden on the union, and puts them at a disadvantage if some members decide that they would rather collect the money than donate it. It sounds fair on the face of it, but the purpose of unions is to take the money and act in the members’ best interests. The donations go to candidates and causes which benefit unions, in theory.

There are plenty of unions who make bad decisions. I was a Teamster in 1984 when a portion of my money was taken and given to Ronald Reagan – the Teamsters being then the only union in the country to endorse him. But I could vote against the union leadership, and eventually that leadership was booted and the Teamsters became a much more effective union by the early 1990s. Basically the remedy for union malfeasance is a democratic process and a vigilant membership.

But you don’t strip the union of one of its chief sources of power if you want more effective unions. Yes, it means there are individuals who have to pay for decisions they don’t like, but that’s the essence of democracy.

Now maybe there might be some fairness if shareholders in corporations had to provide annual written permission to allow money which might have been distributed as dividends be instead donated politically. I might actually vote for a proposal like that just for the potential entertainment of it. Yes, the prohibition against contributions from government contractors is nice, but not worth the damage it will cause to unions which are already heavily on the ropes over the past 30 years.

The notion the proponents are trying to sell that there is any kind of balance in this initiative is a farce. It is an attack on unions, and a power grab in the wake of the Citizens United decision.

Proposition 33 – No

This is another repeat initiative pushed by Mercury Insurance. It would allow auto insurance companies to charge higher rates for people who let coverage lapse. The last time around it was defeated because it would have negatively impacted soldiers. This initiative exempts soldiers. It’s still a bad idea.

There are many reasons people let coverage lapse. Some due to economic hardship. Some because they give up cars and rely on public transportation or other means of travel. The initiative does nothing to exempt such people, and it would still be a bad idea in any case. They already have the option of charging more for people who lose insurance due to DUI convictions or similar reasons.

It’s just one more volley in the war against the poor. Vote no.

Proposition 34 – Yes!

I’ve been waiting to vote for something like this all of my adult life. It would ban the death penalty in California. Win or lose, I will enjoy casting that vote.

I could write an encyclopedia on the reasoning for my opposition to the death penalty: questioning its effectiveness as a deterrent; pointing out the disparities in its application to the poor and certain ethnic groups; the errors which have been made evident by DNA testing; etc. But my reasoning all revolves around the simple point that we as mortal human beings lack the knowledge, wisdom, and moral purity to claim even the collective right to determine whether an individual has the right to live. In fact, I view the death penalty as an expression of supreme arrogance that we can determine the value of a life. I don’t believe it’s something ascertainable on the mortal plane. Add to the mix all of our prejudices, assumptions, and conceits, we have the prescription for disaster every single time.

The irrationality of the death penalty is woven right into our process. We don’t allow certain evidence to be introduced at the “guilt phase” of the trial because it might evoke too much emotion to render a sober and rational decision. We keep out photos of the victims. Testimony about the victim him/herself which might play to emotion. We want that decision to be rational. Then when we get to the “penalty phase” we actually introduce all of that evidence previously deemed “prejudicial,” as if we are asking the jurors to suspend rationality altogether. We want them to render an emotional decision. What can possibly go wrong with that?

Yes, if one of my children or anybody I know or care about is brutally murdered – it’s possible that I will abandon this position and argue for state-sponsored vengeance. In fact, I might want the individual’s death to be painful. I might want him/her to suffer first. Yes, the system would owe me to a certain extent, but how far should the state go to indulge my pain and anger? I would not be the same person. I would be irrational. The system certainly has the wisdom to keep me off the jury. Should policy be based on an attempt to mitigate my loss through vengeance? Will I be a happier person once the individual is killed? I won’t have my loved one back. Just more death to show for the process. I suspect that in the long run, I will be worse off rather than better. Actually, I have no idea how I’ll feel. But I will have been injured by the event, and not in a state of mind to render rational opinion about policy, or judge the value of a human life.

The death penalty is one of the holdovers from an ancient concept of justice which possibly made sense when human organizations were much more hard-pressed to maintain cohesive order. It may have served as deterrence in some form and served a purpose. We are well beyond that now. It’s time that policy caught up with the level of enlightenment we profess. Maybe the argument for enlightenment will be just a little more convincing.

All that being said, I do have a problem with this initiative – it imposes life without parole for all death penalty convicts. This is obviously offered to make the abolition more palatable for some voters, but it’s premised on a falsehood. We’ve all heard the stories about people who are given life sentences, get out on parole, and kill again. It’s in the movies. It’s in political campaigns. But contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of life sentences are just that – life sentences. There is no need to say “never.” The life sentence convicts who are released tend to be exceptional, and even among this group, the exceptions which have been highlighted are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Yes, I understand that it’s not insignificant to the victims, but to mandate against parole in all cases is simply not just either. People do sometimes change and should have the opportunity for redemption and a second chance – in exceptional circumstances.

There is another provision which mandates that the death-sentence-to-life-imprisonment convicts be forced to work, with deductions made to victims. Slavery. Again, I view the justice system’s central purpose as to implement policies which protect us from dangerous people. I’m for mandating deductions for victims should the convict choose to work, but in no case can I advocate forced labor, aka slavery. It’s not a question about what convicts “deserve.” It’s about our values as a professed civilization.

Sadly, these concessions are made in a futile attempt to appease people who are unappeasable. But I will gladly vote for Proposition 34 anyway.

Proposition 35 – No

Heavier punishment for human trafficking? Why not? We’re talking almost the lowest of the low, right? Why care about whether we’re punishing these people too much? They deserve what they get.

Sounds almost reasonable.

A few years ago we passed an initiative increasing penalties against child molesters. It added to what we had already added some years before that? Because what punishment is too great for child molesters? Anything we give them, they deserve more, right? So why even think about it? No punishment is too great. Not ever.

These issues are really inappropriate for a ballot initiative, because sometimes, as severe as the crime is, certain punishments are too great. Or at least ill-conceived. And sometimes, as in this case, they cast a very wide net. These issues, again, should be dealt with in process. Testimony from victims, from social and mental health experts, from law enforcement, even from perpetrators. Punishment is a very complex issue, and an initiative like this will probably pass on the force of emotion alone, because no punishment is too great for these people.

Even non-sexual offenders will have to register as sex offenders for life. Yes, these people are callous, often without conscience, and we should be protected from them. But is this a rational policy?

Even less rational is the provision which would deem anyone of adult age receiving financial support from a sex offender a sex offender him/herself. So basically, an adult child living in the home of a sex working parent could be deemed a sex offender for life. Perhaps the Courts would disallow that on the basis of due process, but as written, that is what the law will accomplish.

There are other reasons to vote against 35. There are some good points to it. I’m all for special police training to deal with human trafficking crime. I’m for the protection of sexual crime victims to egregious lines of questioning in trial, although I thought those protections were already in place. And maybe I would be for the increased penalties for trafficking, but I would prefer that sentencing guidelines be based on a lot more information than I have personally. This is why we have a legislature. Ballot initiatives should be reserved for much simpler issues.

Proposition 36 – Yes

This is a repeat attempt to reform the Three Strikes law to mandate that the third strike crime be serious or violent as the first two. I believe we’ve tried to pass it before, once even with the endorsement of Polly Klass’ family, but it’s always failed. This time the drafters incorporated some changes. The third strike need not be serious or violent if it involves certain drugs or firearms. It exempts from the law convictions where either or both of the first two strikes involved rape, murder, or child molestation.

It would be retroactive to the benefit of those previously sentenced with less than serious third strike convictions.

We’ve heard the stories about people sent away for life on a third strike based upon the stealing of videotapes from KMART.

I’m not happy with the concessions, but then again I don’t support the Three Strikes law in any form so I’ll support anything which weakens it even marginally. In any case, I would hope that most Three Strikes advocates will see the wisdom of these moderate changes. California is a liberal state in many respects, but for some reason we’ve passed some of the most draconian “law and order” initiatives in the country, so I’m not sanguine about the chances of 36 passing. But I’ll be voting for it.

Proposition 37 – Yes

While I am voting with fellow progressives on this issue, I am actually agnostic as to whether GMO (genetically modified organisms) technology is inherently evil and whether there can never be any positive benefit from the science. It’s obviously a very emotional issue, and after my last radio show on the subject I was inundated with a steady stream of recommendations for reading, watching, linking, etc. Food is a very emotional issue. It’s what we put into our kids. It’s what we’re made of.

Generally speaking I support the precautionary principle, which suggests that we learn a whole lot more about something before charging into a practice premised on its safety. We’re talking about changes on a molecular level in which the science itself tells us that we don’t necessarily understand all of the consequences of our actions.

I honestly haven’t followed the issue closely, so I wasn’t aware of some of the nuances of the debate in a recent radio show. Innocently I raised some of the arguments against GMO’s, one being the potential for genetic strains of organisms loose in the wild with no ecological context. I cited the salmon farming as an example of such a biological contamination – the fact that salmon which have been selected for certain characteristic have gotten loose to contaminate the wild gene pool is a serious concern of some biologists, as explained to me during one of my trips to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. I suggested that the biotechnological genetic modification could potentially be as dangerous as the selective breading genetic manipulation. Bad move on my part. Apparently the anti-gmo narrative is that selective breeding is not “genetic modification,” the main reason being because so many industry hacks have said that it is. That discussion dominated much of the show, as I was accused of “spreading the corporate line.”

In the beginning I asked listeners for information of balanced discussions of the topic, but all I really got were sources to convince me of the anti-gmo line, some of which sounded interesting, but none of which I was really looking for. One book was recommended. Otherwise, it was all films and websites. But that’s fine. A couple of women called me up afterward, laughing at some of the callers, and suggested some leads. Either way, that wasn’t really the point. The point is that many people are emotionally invested in the issue – and the investment not just in the conclusion, but also the narrative. The callers were willing to forgive my agnosticism on the subject. They were not willing to concede that selective breeding is “genetic manipulation.”

I do see a problem with the use of the technology to generate a strain of corn which is resistant to herbicides such as Roundup, which allows more of the poison to be used which is dangerous to the environment, farm workers, and neighbors. I have yet to be convinced that any particular GMO on the market is directly detrimental to health, though I’m aware of anecdotal accounts.

In any case, I do not need to reach a conclusion about GMO’s on this initiative. For me, the issue is consumer rights. Even if the technology is benign, the fact that it is in question widely enough to generate such a movement renders the technology an issue for consumer decisions. If the technology is beneficial or benign, it’s really up to the producers and distributors to sell it to the public. They shouldn’t be allowed to hide from the consumer information based on their assumption that they know better than the consumer what is good for the consumer. Similar labeling is already mandated in dozens of countries.

The initiative has a number of exemptions, including “certified organic” products. This is kind of odd as many of the very people who are pushing the measure the hardest will not benefit from the law with regard to their foods of choice. I wonder what the rationale was for that exemption.

It also bans the use of “natural” to describe any qualifying product, and I have to admit after reading the initiative that the exemptions can lead to some confusion. But the courts will sort it out.

In the meantime, I would probably be inclined to vote for 37 solely on the basis that companies like Monsanto and Dupont are spending so much to kill it. But I’m just that way.

Proposition 38 (see above)

Proposition 39 – Yes

Currently state tax law allows companies to choose between two formulas for taxation – one based upon sales in state only, and the other based on a combination of the proportion of its sales, property, and employment in state compared to out of state – so that if companies employed mostly out of state it would pay less in taxes. This initiative would eliminate the second option. As it effectively amounts to a revenue increase, the Republicans have killed the proposal each time with their 1/3 majority.

For some reason, probably as a selling point, a bunch of the new money will be earmarked for alternative energy projects over the next five years. I would be fine with just the elimination of the tax loophole.

Proposition 40 – “Yes”

“Yes” is in quotes because this is one of those confusing measures where yes is no and no is yes. Basically, a group of people don’t like how the State Senate Districts were drawn up in the process we passed, which took the process out of the hands of the legislature and put it into an unelected committee.

I didn’t support the initiative which changed the process, and the redistricting is far from ideal from my perspective. However, the process was open and transparent, drawing considerable public input, and the decision was made. If “no” prevails, they would have to start again and I’m sure the next product will also be imperfect. We’ve got other priorities to fund. Let’s just move on.

141 comments

Thanks for the thorough analyses, Eric, especially your impassioned argument in favor of Prop. 34 (repealing the death penalty). For what it’s worth, someone close to me remained passionately opposed to the death penalty even after a woman he loved was brutally murdered. I agree with you — it’s morally indefensible.

I was undecided on 33 and 35. Your discussion helped me to decide. Cheers.

i agree with your list this time around. i would especially urge no on 32, as well as yes on 37–“right-to know” about what we’re eating seems almost a basic human right, as well as potentially preventing a couple of huge chemical companies from ending up with control of our seed stock.

i’m also proud to be able to vote for NO DEATH PENALTY, and to slightly loosen the noose that the three strikes law has tightened around too many not-so-terrible necks. one size doesn’t fit all.

As I wrote earlier in my preliminary ballot recommendations, I was on the fence with Prop 37. I do read food labels and appreciate the information. However, I’m not all that concerned about what some claim are the adverse health effects of GM ingredients. I was thinking of just not voting on this one. Since then, as is so often the case, proponents arguments helped change my position to a strong NO for the following reasons, particularly #3:

1- Between 70 to 80% of the food on grocery shelves contains at least some GM ingredients nowadays. Since the vast majority of our food contains GM ingredients, it should simply be assumed that foods are GM unless we’re told otherwise.

More and more “health food” producers are labeling their products “GM Free” as a sales pitch. Why not let them continue to expand that practice and use it to their advantage? Seems to me backwards to have the majority of foods labeled with something we should already know. Makes more sense to label the minority of foods that are, indeed, different.

2- This law is ripe for abuse. It requires grocers to know exactly where their products came from, what’s in them and have paperwork to back it up lest someone file a frivolous lawsuit. The thought of someone contesting the validity of a product’s labeling and filing lawsuits should be enough to give most people pause about this initiative.

3- When you read the vast majority of proponents arguments- and I have in comments to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and Sacramento Bee- they invariably include an attack on the companies that produce GM ingredients. That’s really what this measure is all about: a good old California slap at big business.

Proponents will cite all sorts of real or imagined issues with GM foods- as you’ve noted in your post- the labeling does nothing to address those issues. This is more an attempt at harassment of the the evil businesses that create GMs, I’ll certainly have nothing to do with that and will vote NO.

If I were a resident of CA, I too would vote “No” on prop 37. Eric disapproves of the technology that gives some crops a resistance to a commercial herbicide and appears to think that “GMOs” are the sole culprits. That is false: there is a variety of wheat called “Above” (produced by the BASF corporation) that can withstand the company’s herbicide. It was created by induced mutation (nuclear radiation), as were almost 200 varieties of bread wheat grown around the world. Under prop 37, this wheat would not have to be labeled. If CA voters were aware of modern breeding methods, they would be much less fearful of the only plant breeding practice targeted by prop 37. For that reason, I could not vote for a measure that is so misleading.,——————————————If you disagree with my reasoning, I urge you to get a copy of ‘Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology,’ ed. by Michael Ruse and David Castle, and read the essay “Biotech Foods: Right to Know What?” by Peter Spencer. It cites FDA officials on labeling, and it makes clear that singling out just one method of plant breeding is against FDA policy — for the very good reason that every method involves some risk, and there is no evidence that modern biotechnology is riskier than older practices.

Harassing big business is just a side perk for me. But I really don’t see labeling as a burden. I am sympathetic to the grocer issues particulary after the Prop 65 abuses on border stores, but I think the border stores have worked it out by now.

Fred: the “ills” that some people like to decry are imaginary, and I doubt that even the most vociferous activists are really convinced by their own rhetoric — if they were, they’d be launching a campaign to force doctors to inform patients when a drug is a GMO (as about 25% of new drugs are).

I sent my recommendations out to a slew of friends, including some conservatives. Here’s a response on Prop 37 from one of them.

Absolutely. What these evil companies are doing is SCARY. I vote for non-hybrid, non-GMO seeds only. What theses companies really want is no food that produces seeds so you always have to buy it from them. Every good redneck has packages of non-hybrid, non-GMO seeds stored. Join us. This is something rednecks and lefties can find common ground on.

The guy isn’t too bright. While something can be said for “open- pollinated” or non- hybrid crops, not much can. There’s a reason hybrids became as popular as they are among both commercial and non- commercial growers. They’re bred to bring out one superior trait or another in both food and ornamental crops, whether it be larger yields or resistance to disease and pests.

The one good thing about non- hybrid plants is you can save your own seed and use it in survival type situations.

There is a valid concern in regards cross pollination with GMs and hybrids, but labeling does nothing to address that. Even with the cross pollination issue, things can be done to address it.

I’m not sure if I still have it around the house but I had a booklet from the Seed Saver’s Exchange. They’re a group that promote non- hybrid vegetables that you can grow yourself by saving their seeds each season- something you can’t do with hybrids.

They have a table in there that shows distances needed between crops to guard against cross- pollination. I believe they ranged from a quarter mile to a mile or two, depending on the crop.

FWIW, some years ago I bought some non- hybrid broccoli seed and tried growing it and saving the seed. Can’t remember the variety but the plant itself seemed about the same as most. Saving the seed was a big hassle and mine got all moldy. I gave up on that idea.

Right, there are no ills associated with an agricultural industry that is reliant on single strain crops and regular chemical applications to the plants and soil. Its not good or evil for me. Its a fact that GMO crops tend to favor heavy pesticide and herbicide use, which has a direct cumulative effect on our environment.

I personally would like to reduce my contribution to that, which I can only do if the packaged is labeled. Perhaps this is why the opposition to this bill has spent 32 million dollars (compared to 2-3 million spent supporting it). But if its all so great, why dont they spend that money on education or developing ways to not contaminate our environment?

I agree with allot of what Erasmus says on the topic of GMO. There is widespread confusion. Its not all bad. But this bill to me represents a ‘you have to start somewhere’ bill. If it is true that 70+% of products will suddenly contain a GMO label, so what? If anything it will broaden public understanding of food and how it is produced. That is a good thing.

I imagine people opposed to labeling ingredients 50 years ago. Give away our family recipe!? Never! Yet if you have food allergies you thank the stars for that requirement. This GMO requirement will help us head towards more transparency and honesty in the food industry.

If labeling is so important for consumers, why is there not a movement to require that KFC and Coca-Cola divulge their “secret” ingredients? I suspect that (unfounded) fear of a new technology is at the root of the matter, not concern over the safety of a type of food that people have been consuming for the past 17 years. Does anyone believe that “GMOs” might be harmful to our health? This is how a British writer (a former Labour MP) sees the matter: “What has been less widely reported is the absence of litigation in the U.S. about the safety of GM food, and when lawyers in America can find no grounds to sue, there can be no basis for concern” (‘The March of Unreason,’ p. 110).——————————————–Bolithio worries about a push to use more pesticides — fair enough. But I gave the example of “Above” wheat, a non-GMO created specifically to withstand an herbicide produced by the BASF corporation. So I’ll pose the question for the umpteenth time: why single out just one method of plant breeding, when other methods achieve the same results?

Erasmus, you gave the example of ‘Above’ – a plant used in cold and dry portions of eastern CO. Im talking about mega-farms in CA whose mono-cultures and need for intensive chemical applications are leading to many environmental problems. From the development of highly resistant strains of the diseases and pests they aim to control, to the alarming mutation of amphibians (in most of these farms drainage ditches), there are practices occurring that are enabled and encouraged by the development of GMOs.

I too can think of good examples of GMP, or non-GMO situations that are causing the same host of problems. But thats not the issue. I trust the technology, I don’t trust the bottom line mindset of large companies. If thats ignorant paranoia, well so-be-it.

I understand your distrust, and I appreciate your candor. Prop 37 will do nothing to alleviate your concerns, will it? And if the whole country decided to go organic, a different set of environmental problems would beset us. I wish there were an easy, all-inclusive answer. (Although there is one, for those who worry that the world’s seed supply could be monopolized by a Monsanto: anti-trust laws.)

anti-trust laws? anti-trust laws? anti-trust laws? in these ayn rand idea-riddled days we live in, the notion that this country will go the way of “stifling” businesses and individual profit-making “rights” seems at best naive. the anti-trust laws didn’t work so very well(imho) in “breaking up” the att monopoly 30-40 years ago. most of the “baby bells” are gone, re-absorbed into one another, and the resulting firms have been freed from most of the regulation formerly applied to what used to be seen as public utilities. some observers argue that att itself was the mastermind behind the “break-up.”

and then there’s the banking industry, where glass-steagall restrictions on bank/securities/financial firms were shattered by the 80’s’ gramm-leach-bliley fiasco, at whose feet many economists lay the blame for the banking fiasco of the last decade.

there’s no f-ing way short of a revolution(economic collapse?) that we’ll see new or “teeth-filled” regulation or anti-monopoly laws enacted in these days of big business hegemony. you hear lots of talk from policians about how small businesses are the engine that drives the us economy. but it’s big business behind the wheel.

Corporations will spend pocket-change to oppose any unwelcome change, even if its chances of doing something significant are slim. Why do individuals spend large sums of money on insurance that they will very probably never need? ————————————————————-The FDA determines how food products are labeled. Their current regulations prevent something like prop 37 from taking effect. Do you think that a ballot measure in CA, decided by voters who know next to nothing about biotechnology, will force the FDA to change its policy — will require food companies in all 50 states to rewrite their labels? Dream on! This is merely another feel-good proposition, a distraction from CA’s (and the nation’s) serious problems, and it will go the way of Humboldt County’s Measure T (the campaign finance reform measure).

erasmus–of course prop ___(fill in the blank) won’t change the world in any major way, including #37.

even if prop 34 passes and sparks a nationwide tide of death penalty repeals, it won’t change most of the fundamental ways our society “functions.” but i still agree with eric that it’s a worthwhile cause and that it will take a small step in the direction that i think we oughta go.

at least we can show some sign of life when those big corps poke us with their 32 million dollar sticks, instead of just laying there lifeless. and i think fred earlier misses the point–he’s likely right that most of the packaged food we buy contains gmo ingredients. so he and you and i can just assume it’s so. but i don’t believe that the vast majority of people out there do know that GMO is absolutely everywhere–so LABEL those products. it does seem that monsanto, dupont and their friends are worried about it.

i believe you’re also very wrong about the way FDA rules work. they are not so pre-emptive as you claim. there are plenty of examples where companies choose to label products universally for sale in all states when only some or one has adopted standards different from the FDA. look around and you’ll probably notice “reg penna dept agr” (registered pensylvania department of agriculture) on many packaged foods, regardless of where they’re sold or produced. that’s because pa has set standards that meet or exceed those of other states, and that’s how sellers show they’re meeting your state’s standards.

“However, I’m not all that concerned about what some claim are the adverse health effects of GM ingredients.”

So, because YOU personally are not worried about the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed to know if we are eating it? This is about disclosure, just tell me what’s in my damn food. Your argument is basically that people make stupid decisions and so shouldn’t be trusted with the information to make them.

Ooh! It’s in a lot of food so you should just assume it’s in all food. That is a truly weak and myopic answer to peoples concerns. “Yeah, mercury contaminates lots of water supplies, so you should just assume you’re drinking it. Don’t worry though, I’m not concerned about the health effects of that level of mercury.”

I don’t get why you’re so against Prop. 37 Erasmus, if it really doesn’t matter? If I remember right the food industry fought the “Nutrition” labeling tooth’n’nail. If you’re right about the genie being already out of the bottle and almost everything is “GMO”, then let’s see it as it is.

“Do you think that a ballot measure in CA, decided by voters who know next to nothing about biotechnology, will force the FDA to change its policy — will require food companies in all 50 states to rewrite their labels?”

Then why fight it? People spend money on insurance because they are worried about what could happen. Corporations might be amoral greed machines, but they are not complete idiots. They are spending money because they are worried, and they should be.

Polls have been taken to determine how well people understand genetics, and the results are not encouraging. Read the chapter “Why Rich Countries Dislike Agricultural GMOs” in Robert Paarlberg’s book ‘Starved for Science: how biotechnology is being kept out of Africa’ (Harvard U. Press). “Despite the greater salience of GM food issues in Europe, the science of genetic engineering is even less well understood there than in the U.S..”—- and it’s hardly well understood over here! (But “Americans with postgraduate degrees are among those most likely to approve of GMOs.” )———————————————-You think companies like Monsanto are really worried? They are probably as concerned about the whims of poorly educated CA voters as I am of having my house burn down or my car getting totaled, both of which unlikely events siphon off a good chunk of my income.—————————————————————–Moviedad: why do I oppose prop 37 (and I don’t even live in CA)? For the same reason that I oppose teaching creationism in our public schools: ignorance frightens me.

Erasmus; Ignorance frightens you, yet you oppose a law that adds information to the masses. You claim the fact that the masses are not as well read as you as your reason for finding this extra information as useless – yet that seems arrogant and shortsighted. If this type of bill leads to a better understanding of GMO and how GMO will ultimately be defined in the future – isnt that progress? A good thing?

Erasmus, I hesitate to speak in the frames of politics, but think bolithio is as ever, saying to you as it is.

How much is it that you think _you_ understand the science of GMOs, or the psychology of those who are so embedded in the society of them that they can’t speak with any kind of accurate language?

You are hardly likely to gain a good understanding from the book you mentioned, or the one I have read by Nina Federoff, who at the top of her awarded laboratory expertise tried to pass off GMO as just another variant on Luther Burbank distributing pollen. Very negatively convincing.

= For a starter, there is the black hole cosmology of genetic engineering. Ask if there is any clear picture of stability, once the added elements have managed to find the initial place they were intended to go, which they mostly don’t, and only the few results looking as if they might are kept.

Once the addition is there, how long does it stay there? How much of the historic stability of other elements in a genome remains? Read up on transposons, which are actually sometimes used also to jimmy foreign DNA into place. Without the structure arrived at over deep time, you are just asking for the new DNA or significant amounts of the elder to jump out of place. Out of place, well, presumably you can imagine the risks there, I hope, or can find out.

Now consider what is recently admitted about the exceedingly complex relations of all genetic regulators, including amounts of that formerly considered inert intron area. Messing with DNA contents, very much messing with deep relationships we don’t know how to predict, keep in regulation, or in other important ways particularly understand.

The summary would seem that this is not a place for ‘animal spirits’, that emotional energy of speculators and in fact researchers, to be the dependable judge of progress.

= Now, I have heard you say, even if we wanted differently, who could possibly regulate the travel and processing of foods, so that we would know what’s in them?

Here you are repeating a core principle of GMO proponents, which includes their ‘oops, well you know the pollen is going to escape anyway’ mantra. All of it is defeatism applied to gain what they want, and demonstrably not true..

In Europe, enough persons have seen that you don’t have to know all of what the scientists don’t know, to recognise that they don’t, and are too often selling a tale.

The response is two-fold. In Europe there are regulations that work and have worked for a long time, just the way you are arguing they can’t. With this, there is technology the scientific agriculture companies are heavily pushing themselves, which labels and tracks all food components from the field to the market for the table. Which is not unlike what’s used to bring you all those shiny inorganic things constructed around the world.

I know this because it was a prominent part of the forward sustainable agriculture policy at Syngenta, the much better behaved parallel of Monsanto in the world stakes of food growing, when I helped them communicate about it. There are many advantages in tracking to such a company, including as they would prefer (always imperfectly and never the whole intent) to see it, with their customers. One place there is shared benefit is in avoidance and limitation of food-born disasters, such as the ‘oops, my cantaloupe is killing people again’ that we’ve had twice in two years with produce grown within the US. You can consider about the advantages with what’s grown out of it.

Erasmus, your take-name is of someone of considerable wit and well respected accomplishment in Europe. He was a hero in Basel where I lived a long time, for what he’d done in his own life there.

I’ve watched silently as you’ve built your arguments, and can only say how good it feels that exactly the ‘local people, who of course couldn’t know anything’, have used their knowledge and their wisdom to show you where a number of those ideas aren’t really likely to be so.

As in Europe, then, it would seem the right and duty to vote, and the right to have labels, are quite well placed, don’t you think?

Genetic modification is an exceptionally powerful tool, and as it already has in medicine, with proper attention to safe acts it is very likely to help much in progress and a progressive future. We have to regulate those who get too excited for their personal gain or position in it, assure time for the precautionary principle to do its work, for this to come out as best it can, in my opinion. The science in all appearances would speak so, again so far as one person can understand it.

Sorry if I offended anyone when I used the word “ignorance.” I confess to being ignorant in many areas of knowledge —- and I would abstain from voting on matters of public policy if I were shaky in my grasp of them.————————————————————————————————————————-Narration: your characterization of Federoff’s excellent book leaves much to be desired. She is an eminent scientist who does not merit a brush-off from you. There are very good reasons why she was Hillary Clinton’s science advisor for 2 years. And you ought to reconsider your adherence to the precautionary principle —- it’s unworkable, unless we want to live in a completely risk-free society. Aspirin would never have made to our store shelves if the precautionary principle had been in effect a century ago.

I’d just like to note, that in the first article, she’s referring to _all_ developments of plants, in this case, as ‘GM’ – genetically modified. This is saying that the result of nature’s deep history developmental search, often emphasized to be the so-called neutra process, is just the same as throwing in new artificial elements — distinctly not true.

She also argues that crop-selecting tribes were responsible for the prominence of modern-day corn; told in a good story that is likely true, but again with the undertone that modern-day genetic modification is just like such a story.

This is linguistics of pure politics, and just as in her book. I’ve felt her willingness to use them may be at the root of her appointment by Condi Rice – apparently extended a while with Hilary Clinton. Yes, she is a good scientist, and I appreciate what I see there, but that is not the part of the picture that is in question when she uses her background to advance not the science, but the permissioning to use it by the powerful.

In the second article, the argument is more clever, and again very related to the one in her book — I’m interested to see the progress. She sets up transposable elements as an increasing part of what’s beginning to be understood, across decades and finally admitted, about genomic activity. She then goes on to state what a whirlwind of complexity such a system with movable parts probably is.

I think she’s setting up two ideas here: that anyway, the genome moves, “verging on the chaotic” in her words; and that creating new man-made transposons as a means of constructing GMOs is therefore ‘ok, it’s just like nature’. Or just like crop-selecting, as above.

However, any study on complex adaptive systems (the much more informative truth vs. ‘chaotic’) would tell you that introducing significantly different structures into them is really asking for not chaos, but a break to entirely new behaviour. It’s the main science in climate dynamics, where very real (it’s happened before) breakdown in the Gulf Stream is one of the things we’re playing with — to the extent of a ‘snap’ of enormous, almost instantaneous change in every part of world climate.

This kind of thing is exactly where the question of precautionary principle arises. You might let your children experiment, within a framework where you feel you can responsibly understand the degree of trouble they may get into, at the same time wanting them to have the most freedom to experience and benefit that they reasonably can. It doesn’t ask for zero risk, but for manageable degree and likelihood in risk. It’s an adult position.

What you don’t do, though we play with that, is allow commercial entities and wildly enthusiastic practitioners, who have their whole lives wrapped up in science or any other microculture that has deep personal demands and powerful cliques involved in it, to make the judgements. As a positive example, consider Truman firing MacArthur when he insisted he just had to use the bomb.

When science in its larger variety of viewpoints can agree that specific new genomic modifications in nutrition are understood to be safe enough, then we have a case that the public can be informed about. They’ll either trust their appointed-via-elective-results regulators, or vote directly. The labelling question is similar, just that the choice is to be informed as in other aspects of nutrition.

Let me end with a story, very briefly told. Once upon a time and long ago I helped start one of the serious environmental consultancies in the country – our air pollution models were the first to be approved by the then quite powerful EPA. I was managing two air pollution studies in Portland, Oregon, one of which was part of a freeway study of a large architectural firm. There was an older man who showed up often in a green suit, the uniform of Oregon government, who I saw on my first day with a group of young architects literally backing him up against a wall arguing: he was quiet and determined – actually the state assistant highway commissioner. Months later at a Christmas party he dutifully came, and I sat with him where he had been isolated. I asked him what he really felt: should ‘we’ build this great freeway which would literally cut open the residential neighborhoods heart of Portland? No, he said he believed. I then asked him carefully why he stood up for this? He thought, and said he felt it was his duty.

Lots could be made of psychologies and anthropologies there, but I only want to bring the point that you sound something as this man, Erasmus.

I would then quietly suggest that we really need everything science can continue to bring, having both benefitted and changed everything by going so far down this trajectory — but that we really can only do so, just as with the technology-overpowered commercial violence of activity that has cropped up, as we develop means of power to apply appropriate patterns of judgement and regulation to the use of what is found.

Thus, it’s not being disloyal to science, to not logjam against what on a narrower view can seem threats to it, but are actually senses of introducing judgement that can save it. And us.

Thank you for providing the link to an intelligent pro-GMO website. I hope that at least a few of this blog’s readers will consult it, for I think that most of them will reach conclusions closer to mine than to yours——————————-You speak of “artificial elements” introduced into a genome by means of genetic engineering. I beg to differ: the gene(s) introduced already exist in nature. If you are worried about a newly created (“artificial”) gene being placed in an “alien” organism, I suggest you tell your local health food store to start labeling its products created by nuclear-induced mutations: these items (such as Rio Red grapefruit juice) were developed in nuclear labs (Brookhaven, in the case of Rio Red) and incorporate genes that have not been transferred from another plant or animal but have been “mutated” into being through radiation. Do you think your health food store will provide labels informing the consumer of the origin of these products? I don’t: they want us to think that their products are “natural”. They want misleading labels to be approved by underinformed CA voters in November.————————————–Once again: thank you for your thoughtful comments and the informative pro-GMO link. Perhaps someone out there in internet-land will take a few minutes to learn what reputable scientists have to say on this matter.

Erasmus, the inserted gene isn’t of course necessarily from nature — essentially whole simple lifeforms are now being assembled in labs, I think and hope with due care.

The deeper mistake I believe is where you want to compare radiation-based local genome errors with insertion of wholly active extra components, as if they’re the same thing.

There’s a concern about size, of course, how much disruption can occur, in terms of destabilizing potential transposons, and this I believe would not be minor. There’s also the question of the potency of the inserted element itself.

A model that occurs to me is to consider how new ideas and activities come into a culture or economy. The familiar way, which cultures manage for their benefit generally well enough, is for persons within to form and communicate new ideas. We’re at least used to that.

GMO insertion as modification, though, is like bringing in a spy; more properly, what used to be called a fifth columnist. That’s someone who comes filled with intent to insert fully formed and foreign ideas, which have various potentials for rapid disruption.

There is the size of the idea, as being too big to be comfortably swallowed (Communism in primitive capitalist USA in the 1930s, resulting in a very harsh immune response, which itself damaged the victim), and also the abilities of the idea itself moving and affecting out of its useful place (if the Communist idea had modified the culture of a society intending of democracy).

Those are analogs of the disrupted transposon control issue, and of the question of what happens when new whole abilities act in an unintended location, in the modified cell, or in another type, where now-established horizontal transfer has placed it.

The direct answer to your proposition is that there appears to be far less risk involved in any of the chemical or radiative means of inducing new variants that we have a century of experience with. Not zero, but with evidence we’re understanding and handling the balance of benefit well enough.

The precautionary principle only extends with our better understanding such good judgement, and puts the balance of that judgement outside the tight loop of those primarily excited by the appearance of opportunity. It’s not going to prevent anything good, and properly applied shouldn’t slow down helpful development, but rather see that the full development gets done, so that the result is known safe to use.

Erasmus, I appreciate your recognition that I’m trying to be thoughtful in commenting, and hope you’ll see that it continues here, so that no fresh mythic stories are encouraged.

One benefit I had of reading the articles on the link is to gain a clearer view of where Nina Federoff is likely headed in her thinking and her experimentation. It’s an interesting idea, and has _potential_ to make GMO decisioning simpler, if it turns out in a researched and validated future that she has an adequate degree of being correct in this idea.

I think it’s pretty clear that no-one can give strong support at present for this idea, out of the knowledge we have in genetics and complex adaptive systems..

So, we don’t or shouldn’t play with fire in foods, any more than we should have allowed corporates to play fast and loose with the economics of everyone. The results of that are clear, if not admitted.

Regulation is what nature itself uses, to keep freedom in inventing and advantage in choosing the best balances. We can do similarly, and letting individuals have the labels to inform their own decisions is one of the fair ways. It keeps open what should be open. At least as I’m seeing it.

Regarding Prop 39, I’m a bit on the fence. While it’s not a sales tax per se, anytime we raise costs on business, we raise costs on consumers. Many middle class people buy from multi-state corporations because they offer a compelling value proposition. California does little to create a business friendly climate. Last time I looked, to maintain an LLC in California, the annual fee is $800. In Oregon, it’s $150. Rather than raise taxes on multi-state businesses to create a windfall for “green energy”, shouldn’t California be more focused on attracting businesses to be based here?

What you say makes a great deal of sense —- and I say that sincerely. Your concerns have been part of the discourse surrounding this matter since the 1970s, when the first conference was held to decide on the pace and the scope of genetic engineering (it took place down the coast, at Asimolar, near Monterey). At a certain point, however, conservatism must give way to pragmatism — fears must give ground to new realities. These new realities are clear to anyone who is not a Green fundamentalist: genetically modified food is safe to eat! ——————————————–Like some people on this blog, you may think that I am being paid by Monsanto (!), or that American scientists have been bought off by Big Agra. Here is some of what Richard Dawkins (a Brit, an atheist, an anti-establishment sort, an expert on genes who teaches at Oxford), wrote in his “Open Letter to Prince Charles” — ” I think you may have an exaggerated idea of the naturalness of ‘traditional’ or ‘organic’ agriculture. Agriculture has always been unnatural. (….) Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified — admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same. A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass weed, just as a pekinese is a genetically modified wolf. Playing God? We’ve been playing God for centuries! (….) ..one worrying aspect of the hysterical opposition to the risks from GM crops is that it diverts attention from definite dangers which are already well understood but largely ignored. (…) Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf? ” (written on May 21, 2000).————————————Pay attention to those 6 words of Dawkins: “the end result is the same.” HOW genes are altered is irrelevant, as far as the safety of the end result is concerned. That’s what scientists believe, and the record of the last two decades bears them out.

So a GMO plant, intrinsically is no different than a plant which is altered through hybridization. Agricultural in general can be philosophically argued to be ‘un-natural’ and then later argued that GMO fits within the human agricultural model. That all could be true. Lets assume it is. A mutated plant – in and of it self – is not the issue (At least for me). If I buy an organic apple, not only do I look cool buying them, but I know that I am supporting a industry that has a lighter overall impact on the environment.

If anyone is to blame for the misconceptions or widespread ignorance about GMO – it is the producers of GMOs themselves. They have to earn our trust. I believe there is huge potential for GMO. But so far lacking from the case for GMO is a quantification of the effects of extensive and prolonged chemical use, the long term effects of GMO plants on conventional species, as well as the risk of threatening sustainability by relying on plants that could be very susceptible to disease or pathogens.

Im less concerned about how safe it is to consume as I am with the broader enviornmental effects and long term effects on agricultural sustainability.

The arguments being presented here are compelling for the use and future of advancement of GMO, IMO. But a good reason not to label it in food products now has yet to be articulated.

Erasmus, thank you also for letting me understand you a little better.

Dawkins — well, I’m pretty familiar with him and I would have to say, not very attracted by many of his ideas. There’s a tale told earlier of when I met some of his cohort there at Oxford, when I lived in Britain and visited often. Rationality has often taken a strange pitch in that place, and turned up in the most unexpected places, not to our betterment. The recent deep expose of Thomas Jefferson in the Smithsonian Magazine would be a good example.

Let’s look at the key phrase, “the end result would be the same”. Well, I think, not really. That’s because the input, the DNA element, is not the same, or of the same qualities. Looking into this once again shows a kind of knife edge in current knowledge, and I think the sharp portion of it is discussed in this paper: http://www.ieu.uzh.ch/wagner/papers/Wagner_PRS_robustness_2012.pdf

The essence of such advancement in neutral theory is that the cell accumulates modifications which do not disrupt it, and might give value when called for, with one last change. As that change occurs, the modification expresses, and natural selection will decide if it’s a beneficial one in the circumstance. The same process tends to accumulate potentially beneficial ready-to-act modifications which can become active for selection when other circumstances prevail. This is the robustness we find in naturally occurring plants, for example, and in the varieties third world farmers are known to save that can keep their production going when there is climate upset.

Laboratory-applied genetic sequences do not have the advantage of having been honed and tuned within the living plant. They have no history of getting along with what keeps the plant living and accurately reproducing itself, and no history of dependably avoiding becoming harmful to those who eat it, particularly by re-energising or creating new transposon self-changes in the DNA.

I’m going to stop here, just with this point made. It’s the key one, that insertion technologies are not just like even acceleration of natural means, the ones you mentioned and I did via chemical or radiation insults.

Since they’re not, I like to know the history for a food I eat. Corn and roundup-resistance, cotton and BT, we’ve had for better or worse, and been lucky, where the result was forced upon the public. The sheer scale of how very much more can be done is every argument for progressing with great care.

I’m familiar with the Asilomar moment, which recognized where scientists in the labs just weren’t going to do so without a meeting of their own authority, just how much danger they were playing with, then sans anything like adequate safeguards. They were afraid of others getting ahead, if everyone didn’t agree to the same rules.

I have seen no moment of discovery which yet changes the reason behind those rules, rather just an amount of scientists who seem to have become tired of them, saying we got away with it on a few cases, so let’s go.

The kind of thinking Nina Federoff seems to have in mind might someday advance this — if it is as I may understand a theory which could improve our grasp of how dependably balances can in complexity maintain themselves. But it’s not at all present, nor much begun; not something we can see, understand, nor agree to, yet. Thus the need for precautions is still very much present as a shadow.

I presume that’s what she’s getting her students to look into, perhaps a degree away from Western rules, in the monied Saudi institute she’s gone to. It made my ears prick up, not only negatively; I’d actually be quite engaged if she finds something, for its usefulness in problems we deal with other than science, and possibilities we’d like to recover the sense of having, freedoms for imagination that make everyone more alive.

I’m actually always on the end of creativities and advancements, Erasmus, and stepped forward here on this one just as I mentioned above: in some real enjoyment of how the kinds of people I literally grew up with can be with their own knowledge and imagation and interest in living all facets of life, wise. I think they saw truly here, and that we would all benefit from the fairness of knowing, including its rebalancing consequences, via the labels.

Thanks again for a good discussion. I think we’ll both be interested as the story goes ever forward, and improves all the views here.

I think if we do it right, we’ll have just as much benefit as gained you that agriculturally developed, and probably hybridized, and especially attended to as organically grown apple. For the food shortages to be avoided as they may come, and for what’s delicious. Cool, it is, too😉

Folks, Erasmus as he likes to call himself is no authority on GMOs. He doesn’t have a grasp on the latest research, nor on the difference between industry claims about GMOs versus the reality on the ground. Citing the FDA as an authoritative source discredits his claims. The claim of substantial equivalence is based on antiquated methods of comparison. And how can a food be considered both substantially equivalent, yet unique enough to deserve a patent? Only with the mental gymnastics or blind credulity required to believe the rest of the fairy tales told by the Biotech industry. A little research reveals a vastly different reality.

Increased yields? Read the Union of Concerned Scientists report called “Failure to Yield.” In a nutshell, any increased yields are due to hybridization, not Genetic Engineering. Most GM crops produce LESS than their conventional counterparts. GM Corn is the only crop that could even match the conventional corn crops.

With the current drought in the Midwest, this may no longer be true, as GMOs take twice the water that conventional crops require. So much for feeding the world in a changing climate! This piece of information comes from Dr Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue University. There are many excellent interviews with him that are worth your time to understand the vast scope of the negative impacts of Genetic Engineering and the overuse of Roundup.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine recommends that all patients follow a GMO-free diet due to the increased allergenicity and toxicity of GM products. Want proof? Read Genetic Roulette, which details 300 studies showing negative effects on nearly every system studied.

The new movie, also called Genetic Roulette, makes a compelling case for avoiding GMOs based on studies & reports from farmers and doctors. Over and over, you will hear: the GM food made my animals sick. I changed the feed & they got better and were happier. The doctors say: when you take the GM foods out of the diet, the patients all improve.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Do some reading, watch the movie, and you will understand why labeling GMOs is the only sane response to this situation. As Dr Huber says, “this isn’t political. It is a matter of survival”.

It;s true —- I have to confess —– I’m no authority on GMOs! (Mea maxima culpa.) —– But neither is Ms, Rashall. So the question becomes: who IS the authority to heed before voting? Could it be the National Academy of Sciences, our nation’s most prestigious assembly of scientific minds? They have given the green light to GM food. Could it be Bill Gates? He’s not stupid, and he funds GMO research. What about Jimmy Carter? Has he been bought off? I doubt it — and he understands agriculture. Does Richard Dawkins deserve to be listened to? He taught at Oxford and has written classic books on genes. Maybe the Cuban government is on to something — they have become enthusiastic backers of GM crops — and they don’t care much for American corporations.—- Or should we listen to a certain “Dr. Huber”? My response: LOL. ———————————Judge for yourselves, CA residents. If, after 17 years of hundreds of millions eating GM food, and no lawsuits against GMOs that have gone anywhere….. if you are really concerned about health and safety issues,,,, well, all I can say is: CA voters are a Princess, and they are troubled by a harmless GM Pea.

if you are really concerned about health and safety issues,,,, well, all I can say is: CA voters are a Princess, and they are troubled by a harmless GM Pea.

OK. Opinions for or and against GMO, thats great.

Thing is, this is a law about labeling. Not pro or con GMO. Nothing in this measure advances or slows GMO. It requires labeling. Simple. Easy. Information for the consumer. How is information a bad thing?

Erasmus, I don’t claim to be an expert–I quote experts. Dr Don Huber is an expert, a PhD and Professor Emeritus at Purdue University with 55 years experience in microbiology and soil pathology. I urge any critical thinkers reading this to check out his interviews.

As for your claim that the NAS has given the green light to GMO’s, well, it shows you have been reading the No on 37 talking points and not doing any research of your own. What the NAS actually says is rather different:

A National Academy of Sciences report concluded that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”

In addition, the American Medical Association has adopted a position calling for mandatory safety assessments of genetically engineered foods.

And the World Health Organization / United Nations food standards group, Codex Alimentarius, which sets the global on food policy issues, states that mandatory safety studies should be required — a standard the US fails to meet.

And I do need to point out the Biotech doesn’t claim GMOs are safe–but rather that they have never been proven dangerous by the industry’s own studies. In contrast, independent scientists have done over 300 studies showing that GMOs cause system-wide damages in nearly every organ system studied. The recent French study followed rats throughout their entire lifespan and found a shocking increase in mammary, kidney and liver tumors, as well as early mortality, in the test rats. http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20120920-monsanto-gm-maize-may-face-europe-ban-after-french-study-links-cancer

Yes, California voters do need to decide for ourselves whether we would like access to the same information that consumers in 61 other countries around the world already have. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/ We need to decide whether the right to know if we are eating GMOs should be in our hands, or whether we think that information is best kept secret by the Biotech industry and Industrial Food producers.

While farmer reports and independent scientific studies about the dangers of GMOs are ignored or discredited by industry scientists, and while citizens wait for conclusive information to settle the matter once and for all, Prop 37 will ensure Californians the right to choose whether or not eating GMOs is right for their family.

Look at the funding, follow the money. Corporations are pouring 35 million dollars into denying you this fundamental right to choose to continue to eat GMOs, or to opt out of the open-ended untracked human feeding experiment that we are all participating in without our informed consent.

If you want to eat GMOs because you think they are so great, labeling will allow you to eat GMOs exclusively. It is a win-win for everyone.

Erasmus, what is your stake in this? Why don’t you use your real name?

Rosa, I agree that developing strains of produce just to survive nasty pesticides such as round-up is a poor practice. And I don’t disagree with concerns about a variety of corporate practices with this technology (and other technologies). However, in the absence of personal understanding of the science, I am reluctant to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. What if crops can be developed which can produce in famine-stricken areas of the world? Or which can resolve or mitigate other issues?

The industry and tech apologists often bring up golden rice, which may help to mitigate Vitamin A deficiencies around the world.

I understand that there are specific criticisms of golden rice, but the concept isn’t evil or even just motivated by corporate greed. I understand the concerns of putting even a seemingly benevolent GMO product out into the ecosystem because of potential consequences that perhaps can’t even be foreseen. But I also feel that technophobia can be so extreme as to potentially deprive the world of beneficial products.

Prop 37 excludes medicines, including insulin which I understand is now almost exclusively GMO, so labelling would probably be superflous anyway if there is no choice. And I know that there’s anecdotal evidence of bad reactions to the GMO medicine. On the other hand, animal rights advocates have been hopeful about the GMO’s, and there is medical argument that the GMO stuff is closer to the human version and therefor actually less prone to negative reaction. It’s obviously a very complex discussion which needs so peer-reviewed attention.

As I said, I’m for labelling, even if it’s cost-prohibitive for some products. And I understand the Luddite impulse – I think it’s a good thing to want to proceed cautiously, particularly when we’re messing around with biologies we don’t fully comprehend. But “western science” does have its benefits, even if its advocates can be arrogant and overreaching in the claims.

I agree with Rosa. If people want to be taken seriously they should use their real name. That’s one thing I dislike about web forums and blogs. There’s a lot of discourse that people would not have the courage to make if they weren’t conveniently anonymized. We should celebrate the fact we live in a society where you have a right to free speech. Using pseudonyms just doesn’t seem appropriate to me.

There’s a lot of discourse that people would not have the courage to make if they weren’t conveniently anonymized.

Dear Dave, is this not the great part about being anonymous? People can express ideas that they otherwise might not feel comfortable saying, do to professional or personal relationships. The negative discourse you refer to online is a problem, and I agree that internet bullying is mostly coming from anonymous. However, I would argue that this issue has more to do with the moderation of a forum/blog than the fact someone can post anonymously.

Bolithio said:” People can express ideas that they otherwise might not feel comfortable saying, do to professional or personal relationships.”

If that’s the case, maybe you are in the wrong profession, or have the wrong personal relationships. I feel bad saying that, especially to Bolithio, with whom I most often agree. However, only a fool would believe that the internet is not rife with corporate and government disinformation. If looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and most of all TALKs like a duck it is. Unless he offers some credentials that he is not, Erasmus is a corporate duck.

All I want is a label on GMOs. I’m not swallowing the story that babies will starve if we label what we eat.

Ernie, your argument appears to be if an anon poster supports an idea that doesn’t match yours, they must be a shill for the opposition. This constantly happens to me when I debate timber issues. Im instantly a industry executive hired to spread misinformation. Erasmus (here I go judging people) is a intellectual person who enjoys talking about stuff. Kind of like me (but im less well read). To accuse him of being a ‘corporate duck’ because he uses a pen name is silly, and in my view weakens the arguments made on this topic.

Its like when ever I have contended that some timber practice my be positive, or not as damaging as many people think, I am refuted by insults, accusations of who I might work for, or how Im hiding behind a anon name. Again, desperate – because they cant really find what Im saying is incorrect – so they attack on other grounds.

The name has nothing to do with it. Ernie Branscomb could be a fake name as far as anyone knows, but that is beside the point. Its your thoughts and ideas that matter.

“All I want is a label on GMOs.” — So do I! But virtually all food has been genetically modified, and I think that ALL methods should be labeled; you, apparently, want only one. I think most people, in most parts of the country, would find my desire sensible. You, apparently, don’t. And you don’t see why GMO producers might find the proposed label law objectionable? I don’t think it takes much imagination to put yourselves in their shoes. Would you object to a law that forced you to wear a sign announcing your ethnicity, when the law would exempt me? I think most people would understand your opposition to that law. And you would (of course) be correct. —– This isn’t rocket science, folks. I recently read that all 8 major newspapers in CA have come out against prop 37. I don’t know why, but it wouldn’t be hard to think of reasons.—————————————————————————————I should pay attention to Dr. Huber? Sorry: the world is full of “experts” whose only claim to fame is their willingness to be the man who bit the dog. You’ll find many “Ph.D.”s among climate science deniers. You might even find a few who oppose vaccines (though they are probably as rare as Holocaust deniers). I feel no obligation to argue with cranks.

A “corporate duck”? I’m not offended by the charge, for it’s a good source of laughter. My first comment on the blog today was made minutes before I drove to a local high school and the second one was typed shortly after I came home after a day of teaching. My students could gain some valuable lessons by reading the remarks that have been posted here recently. They would learn (a) how to debate effectively (b) what constitutes acceptable risk (c) which matters are properly decided by voters who lack the education to truly understand all the ramifications. They would quickly discern the limitations of direct democracy, alas.

If I can break in here for a minute and change topics. It seems that many progressives disagree with my take on Prop 35. The Teachers Union is for it. Some womens’ groups are for it. The Green Party is silent. The ACLU is silent. The Council of Churches and Quakers oppose it. The Libertarian Party is silent. The Peace and Freedom Party is opposed. The SF Bay Guardian is opposed.

The Democratic Party is for it.

My mother is for it.

It’s going to pass, we all know that. But that’s not the point. I’m curious as to local take on the issue.

FWIW, I’m voting NO on 35, not because of Eric’s arguments but because I think this proposition implies that these crimes will be reduced by harsher punishment. And I don’t agree that’s the case and by focusing on punishment the public is falsely assuaging itself that this solves the problem. Prevention of exploitation by making it much easier to report people at risk(especially girls within their familes) and stronger social services authority to remove at-risk children from harmful environments. Of course, that costs more $$, but if this is seriously a priority it can be done.

I wonder how many people plan to vote yes on 35 because punishment deters crime and vote yes on 34 because severe punishment doesn’t deter crime?

We’ll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, if you’re a person of integrity you should post with your real name. We don’t live in a regime where someone is going to come to your house and arrest you because of an internet post (admittedly a few exceptions but not relevant). Speak your truth. If someone has to hide in the cloak of anonymity, then perhaps it’s just better left unsaid. I understand many if not most Americans choose to live in fear. That’s their choice but in my mind, not a defensible one when we’re just arguing politics.

Well, I don’t know if harsher sentences will more effectively deter the crime. Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn’t. I would like to hear from experts on the issue, which is why this should be dealt with in legislative process.

In the meanwhile, the Green Party hasn’t been “silent.” They take no position, which is uncharacteristically wimpy of them, and explain why here.

Erik wrote, “ Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn’t. I would like to hear from experts on the issue, which is why this should be dealt with in legislative process..

As if the legislative process has done so well, so far. Bottom line, as I see it, is stronger penalties have never resulted in less of the crime. That’s not to say some people shouldn’t be locked up longer, it’s just to say we need to really prioritize who does get the longer sentences. This isn’t one of those cases. Those convicted of human trafficking already face considerable sentences.

I wonder how many people plan to vote yes on 35 because punishment deters crime and vote yes on 34 because severe punishment doesn’t deter crime?

Probably a bunch. Californians have a fairly good history on voting for feel- good legislation. I’m voting NO, if for no other reason than this will add no one knows how many people to the sex offender registry. A list already cluttered with people who shouldn’t be on it.

A yes vote for prop 30 ends cuts to the current public education funding. A yes vote for prop 38 brings in much needed additional funding for public education. A yes/yes vote for these propositions tells politicians that we intend to turn our failing public education system around and we are demanding logical, sufficient, and stable funding for public education. A yes/yes vote says that we are demanding real, systematic change in support of high quality K-12 Public Education. A yes/yes vote says that fundraising for everything from teachers to toilet paper is not the answer to fixing our Public Education in California.
For more information and to join our united California voice for better education please visit http://www.educateourstate.org/

A couple of years ago, I commented on this blog under my own name. At one point, I was personally attacked — told to “go die” and get out of the way for younger people to take my place on this planet. Unused to dealing with language like that, I ceased participating on this blog for a few months. The idea of using a pseudonym finally occurred to me. I thought: a “mask” allows one a kind of freedom that being exposed to the light of day does not. And such is the case: I can express controversial opinions without people bringing up my background (dealing with organic food, for many years), my family (heavily involved in organics), or my personality. “Lack of integrity”? Not to my way of thinking. (How important is a name, anyway? I never chose mine, but I did select “Erasmus”.) “In fear”? In a sense: I’m avoiding personal attacks. But I also avoid rabid dogs and bats. What is shameful about conducting a discussion in which only ideas are in play? In which personality is absent?

I personally think it’s fine to post under anonymity, so long as it isn’t used as a cloak of cover when you launch personal attacks. I think if you’re going to personally attack someone, you ought to be able to look him/her in the eye. Better to not do it at all, but if you think it’s necessary you should put your name to it.

There are people out there in sensitive positions – maybe a conservative boss, or a homophobic family, or something else which makes publicly putting a name to opinions problematic. For me it’s all about responsibility.

I don’t want to derail Eric’s important political discussion here, but to imply that an anonymous comment should carry the same credence of a statement by a learned scholar willing to sign his name and stake his reputation on its veracity is ludicrous. An anonymous comment may be thought provoking, but certainly not something that should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

The mere fact that Bolithio and Erasmus do us the honor of signing their pseudonyms gives their statements more credence because we know their names and we can connect their thoughts that they have shared in the past history. I’m very sure that they, at least, understand that much. They have both established a reputation under their pseudonyms. They know that their statements would be lost in the wind without their signatures. Signing their real names and putting some real skin in the game would make their thoughts be much more valuable. If they don’t want to do that I can completely understand.

My area of expertise is that I eat food. I want to know who produced it, what is has in it, where it is from; I particularly don’t trust food from China, and to a lesser degree, Mexico. Not racism, but track record. And…. I prefer my GMOs to be labeled; not prejudice but cautious.

Erasmus,
Thank you for confirming my supposition. We’ll mark you down as posting anonymously based on fear.
It’s a shame you let some likely anonymous internet trolls control your actions. Personally if I was frightened to post, I’d simply choose not to post. Avoiding a rabid animal is a poor analogy.

Eric,
Undoubtedly it’s possible that people have a conservative boss or homophobic family. But why should that be the posters problem? Up until 2007 I worked for a very large corporation. I publicly wrote opinions that management did not agree with. When I was at work I did my job and did it well. At one point I got an email from a VP who criticized me for a letter I wrote to a magazine. I reminded him of my constitutional right to free expression and noted that I made no connection to my employer in that letter. I got an apology in return.

One of the reasons this country is in sorry shape is that many Americans are fear based people. Look how easily the public is manipulated.

I can’t help but think what a loss to history and the world it would be if the original Erasmus had remained anonymous…

“.. . After the lawyers come the philosophers, who are reverenced for their beards and the fur on their gowns. They announce that they alone are wise and that the rest of men are only passing shadows. . . . The fact that they can never explain why they constantly disagree with each other is sufficient proof that they do not know the truth about anything. They know nothing at all, yet profess to know everything. They are ignorant even of themselves, and are often too absent-minded or near-sighted to see the ditch or stone in front of them. . . .” Desiderius Erasmus, 1466-1536

I don’t post anonymously, my name is John and I am Eric’s uncle. Because of that, I am in a position to state categorically that Eric has grown up to be incredibly brave. He is in opposition to a proposition that his mother favors. Having grown up with her, I can tell you all that he is in serious danger.

I don’t have as much of a problem with people like Bolithio or Erasmus as I do with “Anonymous”. At least with a moniker, I can carry on a discussion. With “Anonymous”, I am simply guessing whether or not I am talking with the same one at any given time.

Ernie, Desiderius Erasmus could do it because he positioned himself as the loyal inner critic of the established church, while it was under fire by the new Reform or Protestantism. He also had the safety of Basel to write from, where many had gone to be present but outside. Hans Holbein the Younger, for example, whose house I used to walk by, and who made a portrait of Erasmus.

David Benjamin, I am afraid you are showing yourself as being quite naïve, as well as having some unpleasant manners. Learn a little about who mines the internet for reasons of any complexion they like not to give you your next job — most employers nowadays, just to start, and in this culture. Consider who else will also do it. You may feel you are lily pure in life, but may get a surprise someday as politics ebb and flow, where others don’t have the same opinion, and do have the ability to influence the course of your life. The reality Erasmus states is also all around you.

Maybe one of the most positive ways of thinking about this that I could suggest to you is to consider how persons develop new viewpoints, change their minds. Being able to have that anonymous conversation can be a big part of it, as in speaking to someone while on a bus, a train, a plane. It makes a larger life, and we all have need of that in these times.

This place you’ve stumbled into is one of the locations in the internet where among the chaff, there’s a lot of interest and a lot of good going on. What others tell you about reputations works, in a system with no-one controlling it that way, and with a few gaming it. That’s pretty interesting in itself, if you’re interested in the sociology of things. And then you can consider that more than the obvious parts of our social system are built continuously of stories, stories that need to ebb and flow and change. Nothing is actually fixed, and even a D. Erasmus constructs as they go along. Perhaps especially. That’s real establishment, individuality, influence, and history.

You might enjoy getting off your high horse, and learning some of that here. bolithio in particular will show he’s a pretty good fellow, and as he explained, doing as he can in the way that works well.

Just remembered that the most famous work of D. Erasmus was written with a false identity. This is ‘The Praise of Folly’, and he wrote it as a letter of a particularly rude and sharp tongued young woman.

Wikipedia: “In Praise of Folly is considered one of the most notable works of the Renaissance and was employed as one of the catalysts of the Protestant Reformation.”

With Hans Holbein making little drawings off the side…and my attention making little notes off the side, about why I thought of this…

-i’ve been reading Erasmus’ posts here for five or more years and i’ve found that he makes very insightful comments, more intelligent than most, nearly always backed up by links and/or published material. He has a history of commentary that i respect. For me that gives him integrity. Whereas i have no idea who some the newcomers, that supposedly use their real names, are. I have more respect for and trust in Erasmus because i know him from his consistent input over the years. Same for Bolithio, Heraldo, and several others, they have voices that i recognize and give credence to. And their opinions, which i often disagree with, in most cases carry just as much weight as the real-namers like Eric, Unk, etc.

As for the gmo issue, Erasmus has opened up suzy’s eyes. Now it’s true i could find out someday that he’s all along been working for Monsanto and the Illuminati, under a dirty sneaky slimy immoral false name … i’ll take that risk,

We mustn’t be too level-headed —- empathy with other people demands the capacity to identify with all kinds of phobias and dark imaginings. There’s Ernie, who fears that he’s been unwittingly ingesting dangerous food for the past 17 years (that’s how long those wicked GMOs have been lurking on store shelves!). There’s the person who goes by the name of Dave Benjamin, who apparently feels uneasy when someone uses a name that can’t be found in a phone book (get over it, Dave!). There’s Mitch, who (on another blog) smells “bull shit” when a fact about a product in a health food store is pointed out, and states that it is just “rhetoric” to mention this fact because we all know that the public has absolutely NO concern over food created by radiation.( Whatever you say, Mitch. Whatever…….) —– To lighten rather than enlighten (because that is what my sad-eyed troika seems to need), here’s a bit of Jewish humor, from ‘Michael Winner’s Hymie Joke Book’ ———————————– When Hymie turns up at the Country Club with his new wife, a beautiful woman of twenty-five, his friends are knocked out. How did he get her to marry him? “I lied about my age,” says Hymie. “What, you told her you were only fifty?” “No, I told her I was ninety.”

Narration, You are remarkably perceptive. The quotation that I posted was from “In Praise of folly” Written by Desiderius Erasmus, as a witty pun on 16th century society. It was written from the standpoint of a sassy young woman, but it was well understood that the real author was Erasmus. Some people took great offense to “Folly” but others got the humor and were delighted by the, now, great work of fiction. I thoughtfully skipped what Erasmus said about merchants. Most of what he said would still offend most of society today. He is probably still chuckling in his grave.

I choose not to live in fear of what people think of me, my opinions, or anything else. And if I was concerned about future employers, the last business I would want to work for would be one checking the internet for to see if my opinions gelled with theirs. As for others “influencing the course of my life”. that can only occur if I allow it.

You choosing to live in fear is your choice alone. Please don’t project it on me or accuse me of being naive. I know full well what’s going on in terms of monitoring the web. I am certainly not claiming to be “lily pure.” Eric can testify to that😉

Those fighting against the GMO labeling initiative have a tough task. It’s never easy to argue against providing information to consumers. Inevitably most of the arguments involve telling people that either they don’t need to know, or they are too stupid and/or ignorant to understand, or that their understanding and their choices won’t make any difference. Either way, it’s a tough sell, even when you’ve got tens of millions of dollars to get your arguments out there.

So I think this has a good chance of passing. And if it passes, the sky will not fall. Food prices will not skyrocket, stores will not close, nothing like that will happen. What will happen is that some people will ignore the new label, some people who were not aware of how many food products contain GMOs these days will notice how prevalent it is and may want to learn more about the issue, and some of those who take the time to learn more about it will take what they learn into consideration in their food buying decisions. And, again, arguing that they should not be able to make that choice is, well, just a tough argument to try to make.

It’s very easy to argue that providing misleading information will not aid consumers, and it’s easy to demonstrate that Prop 37 does exactly that. Would you like to know how easy it is? Simply learn what the FDA — the folks who oversee food labeling; a fairly important player in this game, I would think — has to say on the matter. Here’s a small sample:”As the Food and Drug Administation points out, ‘virtually all breeding techniques have potential to create unexpected effects,’ including multiple effects from a single genetic change. From this perspective, to single out the biotech process on a label, as genetically modified or anything else, is fundamentally misleading in terms of risk or food quality. —– Ironically, genetic modification through conventional breeding processes such as hybridization, chemical mutagenesis, and tissue culture techniques are far less precise than gene-splicing in terms of the genetic (including ‘transgenic’) information manipulated and the number of likely changes in the final product. So, researchers actually can identify and answer risk questions about biotech risks with far more precision than they can with conventional techniques, as the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) and the National Research Council (NRC) have pointed out.” —Peter Spencer, “Biotech Foods: Right to Know What?”, in ‘Consumers’ Research,’ October 1999.————————————————————————————————-Prop 37, in a nutshell, is misleading. You may disagree, but the FDA won’t.

Prop 37 would simply inform consumers as to whether their food is produced with GMO ingredients or not. There is nothing “misleading” about that, it’s simply a matter of California voters deciding that a specific piece of factual information should be presented on the label.

Whether the initiative passes or doesn’t pass, the GMO industry and others will continue to be free to try to persuade consumers that GMO crops are not harmful to the environment, while environmental groups and others with concerns about GMOs can make their case, and consumers can decide for themselves. But without labeling, both sides can make their case, but the consumer will remain blind to which products contain GMO ingredients and which do not, and therefore will continue to be denied an opportunity to act on the information they have. But it seems that the GMO industry would rather spend tend of millions of dollars to ensure that consumers continue to be blind to the presence of GMOs, rather than make their case that the presence of GMOs is beneficial, or at least harmless.

Which suggests to me that the GMO industry is not confident that, even with their massive financial resources, they will be able to persuade consumers to agree with their position that the use of GMO crops is not harmful to the environment. Which is understandable given the clear evidence that, for example, herbicide-resistant GMO crops like Roundup-Ready soybeans and corn have led to a significant increase in pesticide use on those crops, while failing to significantly increase crop yields.

OK Dave, go ahead and mark me down for no integrity. You are free to ignore my posts – but dont call me chicken.

Cheers~

Ernie, Thanks for at least acknowledging that we here in this community (online) carry on a ongoing dialogue – where we share ideas and such. Thats all it is for me. Im not trying to lobby for this or that, politic, or some other motive. I have found this site to be interesting, and learn much from the variety of posters who have life experiences that differ from mine. Generally, this blog tends to have less of super negative trolls as do other web blogs.

Thank you to all the people how post here for continuing fun, interesting debates and conversations. It never personal for me, and I would expect that I could get along with all of you – no matter how different our opinions may be on some issues.

I’m sorry to have to say this, but — your response disappoints me. If you don’t see how prop 37 misleads voters into thinking that only ONE method of genetic midification is worth labeling (or even mentioning), if you don’t understand at this point in the debate that OTHER methods of gene alteration can achieve the SAME results as genetic engineering (e.g., resistance to herbicides), if you don’t understand the FDA’s logic —- well, you are less “reasonable” than I thought.

On 37—I’m more concerned about the industrialization of farming and the patenting of seed varieties—voting yes because I don’t want to support those practices, whatever the long term health effects of eating the produce. Nate Walker, minister of the UU congregation in Philadelphia, has preached about this—Monsanto, specifically. Here’s a link:http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/172753.shtml

A very interesting link — and proof that almost no one is aware of his or her biases: “How will you support a label that informs consumers about genetically modified crops..” etc.? What kind of question is THAT? It’s a question that begs many other questions (at least to anyone who’s done a modicum of research into the issue). ————————Voting for prop 37 to fight seed patenting and the industrialization of agriculture? I don’t see the logic there: seeds can be patented even when they’re not genetically engineered (BASF’s herbicide-resistant “Above” wheat variety), and industrial agriculture pre-dates GMOs by several decades.

Erasmus, it’s probably me who’s most sorry (this is rhetoric?) to comment any further, but I can’t quite leave what you said to stand. The key faults with what you say are:

– The FDA is today far from a strong contributor, and we will not talk about how they got that way as it’s not relevant to the labelling question.

– The ‘chemical equivalence’ method of deciding a GMO product is not sound. It specifically deals with none of the active genetic elements involved. You are instead measuring as if you were measuring ground up sawdust, not what wood is like when it’s whole. You’re also very specifically not measuring how the GMO product may become different in future, which is just where an amount of the potential problems lie.

I appreciate what you said about not being scientifically knowledgeable, and arriving at your positions via those who you choose to view as authorities. All one would observe about this is that it would be very tricky business.

Put the labels on.

Let’s let this encourage a proper balance of good old American let’s just do it, with a sensible level of educated good sense on how far you push that, and according to what we continue to learn.

It appears that the discussion of this particular ballot measure is coming to an end, and I do not regret it. In a sense, I think this is a trivial issue, and I hope CA voters feel more passion when they consider matters such as capital punishment (which I hope they vote against). History will eventually decide whether I am wrong on the scientific aspects of prop 37. You continue to raise points that, to the best of my research-based knowledge, have already been settled. It is, of course, possible that you are right and that I am wrong — I can’t deny that. But — as in the case of global warming — I feel entitled to side with the scientific consensus. If you happen to believe that GMOs are an “American” product and something that American big business is imposing on the world, I urge you to google Anne Glover, the chief scientific adviser to the European Union. My views mirror hers on this issue, and hers reflect that of the vast majority of European scientists. It’s the politicians and the misinformed public who are keeping GM food off the continent, not the professors and researchers.

Erasmus, as always I find your remarks thought provoking. I have a few questions, though.

Actually, I must first apologize for bringing these up in the waning moments of this thread. Further, I hope you understand that I am genuine in asking. I don’t mean to demean anything you have said.

First,in one post at 2:38 on 10/15, you asked why you need pay attention to Dr. Huber and then added that you had no obligation to argue with cranks. It may not have been your intention, but you must admit that it appears you were attacking Dr. Huber in particular. Do you have some information about him that might be relevant here?

You might also notice that Rosa refuted your statement that there have been no documented cases of nastiness (my word, not hers) that can be attributed to GMO. Again, we have “these people” against “those people.”

Later, you alluded to a study that shows that hybridization is less accurate than gene-splicing. I’m not convinced that that makes it any safer. The world has been hybridizing for a long time and we, as humans, probably feel better about that than we do about GMO simply because of that experience. With gene-splicing we are causing changes far more rapidly than ever imagined with the other techniques mentioned. Being fearful of that is not, to my mind, irrational. Perhaps I have read too many science fiction stories with “science run amok” as a theme.

As far as Anne Glover is concerned, there is much controversy with her statements on the continent. I am not in a position to say who is right and who is not, but the controversy is alive and well.

I have already taken too much of your valuable time. Being a high school teacher myself, I know how truly valuable it is. To end this, I will simply state that I once again agree with Ernie, who has applied his Hammer Principle to this problem when he stated:

“My area of expertise is that I eat food. I want to know who produced it, what is has in it, where it is from; I particularly don’t trust food from China, and to a lesser degree, Mexico. Not racism, but track record. And…. I prefer my GMOs to be labeled; not prejudice but cautious.”

At a certain point in a debate, fatigue and simple reliance on common sense take over, For many decadesl, vaccinations were a matter of controversy (injecting part of a cow into a human being?!), the electrification of our houses was thought to be extremely hazardous (see Linda Simon’s book, entitled – I think – ‘Dark Light;), and the story continues with GM food: splicing an “alien gene” into another organism. This most recent public scare ignores an undisputed fact: that no organism is “alien” to any other. Doesn’t it appear to you that a human being and a banana are as “unlike” each other as it is possible to be? You would be mistaken: bananas share 50% of their genes with us. Let’s say that someone devised a method of altering our genome for the better by splicing a banana gene into us. I imagine there would be an outcry — but it would be unreasonable, for why should this single “banana gene” be deemed “alien” when thousands of other “banana” genes are already part of our makeup?————————————————–When I did a bit of research on Dr. Huber several months ago (his ideas have been floating around for some time now, with no noticeable effect on anyone noteworthy —— and there are professors at MIT, Princeton, and elsewhere who find “climate change” science to be full of holes, and I don’t detect any breakdown of the scientific consensus), and I learned that he spent most of his career in the military. If I learned that a highly-regarded reseacher who had not spent his life working for the military (hey, I’m admitting a bias) had come out against genetic engineering, I would pay some attention. This person would, of course, have to explain why the many drugs produced by the same method should be banned (or, at least, more tightly regulated).———————————————————————— But fatigue takes over. Matt Ridley wrote his best-seller ‘Genome’ in 1999. In his discussion of GM food he adduces several facts to demonstrate its safety. One of them is the evidence of the 250 miilion (or more) Americans who have been eating it for …. years. N.B.: the book was published in the last century…… 13 years ago. There had already been 4 years, billions of meals, oodles of lab tests, and the imprimatur of the National Academy of Sciences. And my fatigue says: what more could the Ernies of the world possibly want? What would allay their concerns? I’m afraid I have no answer — and debate becomes pointless when no satisfactory answer is even possible.

Just one more comment: tra (who is usually extremely reasonable) believes that the producers of GM food have been unable to convince the public of the safety of their products, and that the onus of proving their case (i.e., proving a negative) falls on their shoulders. This is an odd statement coming from an American. Evolution has been a well-established fact for a long time now (though the theory of how it takes place is sketchy).; I imagine that many Americans — and a majority in some states —– would vote to include a creationist version of human origins in school textbooks. They would have no trouble finding many PhD.s to write the texts, and they might even place the competing versions of human beginnings side-by-side in the textbooks. Should they be allowed to do so? Why not? Students can decide for themselves what to believe. They will be given “information” to make a “consumer choice” (for aren’t we all consumers these days?). After all, the Darwinists have not been able to persuade the American public , so their “product” must be defective in some way. ———————————–The illogic should be palpable. And I detect a similar logical lapse in those who think that GMO makers are at fault for failing to educate the American public. —– Where is Mencken when we need him?

You don’t want to understand that the science is not finished, and that the risks here are different of kind than those you mention which have come before.

Most of those came in moving from a world of safe enough traditions (i.e. we ate things and those who didn’t perish survived with their customs) into one where science could seem to generate straightforward and authoritative answers.

However, as human powers have increased, we can now do a lot of things that we might not like to do. Like stop the Gulf Stream, and change the world’s climate directly. Like generate an almost-stop to the entire now-complex-adaptive-ruled world economy, or surge the jobs out of one country into a worldwide market which can simply take all we allow. And yes, we have the increasingly ability to add to or modify the innate structure of all the biology that we depend on to eat or otherwise live.

These are facts, and a new paradigm for them, a new context, which we do have to face. Getting tired, and returning to old, previously safe rhetoric and its long-evident prevarications won’t protect anyone.

Are there actually answers? Yes, there are. They are not the answers of static decision, but there are some that are close enough to be recognized from that tradition.

The biggest answer that we so far know is that of influence, in a formal sense. The language is of attractors: you place policy which attracts the behaviour and thus result you prefer. You can do that where you simply can’t control, as in an economy or other ecosystem. The reach and awareness of proper signals to employ is what we uncover better now and into the future.

This is where two simple things we’ve talked about have a lot of strength. One is the precautionary principle, which is that you don’t move into danger any more than other dangers suggest. The other is to use signals which are or become the attractors you want.

In this way of understanding our times, signals such as labels for GMOs do all the right things. First and primary, they retain and accentuate the freedom of individuals. From this, they tend to put a brake on questionable activities until they are able to show they are sensible to choose. A brake, an influence, not a prohibition — which is another thing persons may choose if a sensibly balanced and regulated way isn’t in place. As Europe did.

I’m not going to ask a question here, Erasmus, because I also feel this conversation is best when we agree it’s run its own particular course.

I am sure there will be many conversations, and that this is the nature of policy which allows matters to go on, but with proper influences, and of course stronger regulation where that may be needed. Doing it the open way, least need for regulation, best opportunities also, for everyone I think.

Unk John, I meant to say when I read them earlier, that I really appreciated your thoughtful observations, and as much the ways you stated them. One of those good influences, you are, here. A tip of the hat.

you’re, of course, Erasmus, in the first sentence. I don’t know if it’s the definite need for new glasses, or the exigencies of typing a thing straight from thought on a weblog as if speaking that does it. but I sure notice things I would never have done on these writings. Probably the fingers quicker than the eye, or the inner ear…

I think Erasmus must needs prepare for the coming winter, up there on that nasty weathered Northern Peninsula. I agree, it is time we put this to rest.

I need to prepare myself to fill out my mail-in ballot – the entire state of Washington does it that way – which this time will include an initiative to essentially legalize the possession of The Killer Weed.

The longer this discussion continues, the clearer it becomes that I am a poor debater. When intelligent people like my most recent sparring partners remain unpersuaded by my comments, it’s best that I acknowledge my limitations. After all, I was not led to my present position on this issue by someone like me — I was influenced by (among other writings) the chapter on GMOs in James Watson’s ‘DNA: the Secret of Life’ (it would take the typical reader no more than 30 minutes to read it) and Nina Fedoroff’s ‘Mendel in the Kitchen: a scientist’s view of genetically modified foods.’ These two resources do a much better job of explaining the science and clearing up misconceptions than I could ever do.

Erasmus, you make a convincing argument that GMO technology has allot of promise, that intrinsically its no more harmful for consumption than other plants, and that there are many methods of arriving at a GMO. That is beyond hybridization, there are several ways to create a GMO – some of which are currently overlooked by our proposed prop 37.

I find all of these to be good points.

Yet I dont see how these facts would not warrant starting somewhere. If indeed we are only getting certain types of GMOs under this provision labeled, it will at a minimum inform people that GMO exist, and force the industry to explain what they are doing to our food supply with more detail. Furthermore, it paves the way to clarifying other methods of genetic tinkering for the future, defining GMO better, and having a more informed consumer base – which is a good thing.

If the masses struggle with the concept of GMO, or fail to understand all the nuances with this technology, that is hardly a reason to no label now. As one posted pointed out, there was big opposition to nutrition labeling. You can argue that many people ignore these labels, yet many people depend on them – such as diabetics or people with allergies.

Ill say that you have convinced me that this is not the ideal bill, but I dont believe it is totally inert either.

Yes, I do — and this is the second time a comment of yours has eased my concerns. ==== There are aspects of this whole question that haven’t been addressed. The motives of the sponsors of the measure is one: simply put, I think they are being disingenuous with their calls for “information.” They already have their info — they want the public at large to be scared into shunning any product with a skull-and-crossbones GMO label; based on interviews I’ve seen, they’d like the entire industry to be shut down. (What they think about the many popular medicines that have been created by genetic engineering is a mystery to me.) If you and Eric Kirk were typical of the people behind this measure, I’d be less worried. I don’t trust Greenies, and I don’t have faith in the public’s resistance to witch-hunts ( against novel genomes). Hysteria is just a scare story away————————————————————By the way, one of my state’s candidates for US Senate (Debbie Stabenow) was interviewed on the radio this morning, and a caller asked if she would support a bill to label GMOs. She — to my delight — echoed the FDA line, which says that only matters of nutrition and safety should be labeled. (And there is, in spite of what some Greenies say, no persuasive evidence that GMOs are more dangerous than any other food.) There are many senators who agree with Ms. Stabenow — do you think the FDA will heed the will of (let’s be honest) underinformed CA voters? I certainly doubt it.———————————————————————–I’ll say it for the last time: a partial label (one that ignores the many methods of genetic modification) is a misleading label, and a corporation has the right to be free of such one-sided labeling —- just as a human being has the right to be exempt from being singled out ethnically (e.g., the yellow stars in 1930s Germany). Of course, there will be those who think “information” trumps everything else (“Don’t I have the right to know who’s a Jew?”) — and they might even utter the stupid thought: “What are they trying to hide? Are they ashamed of who or what they are?” — The workers at Monsanto are very proud of their company; they don’t want to be pawns in a Greenie smear campaign, and an incomplete, partial, disingenuous label is an attempt at a smear, and every voter should be aware of the fact.”A little learning is a dangerous thing,” wrote Alexander Pope, and a misleading label is worse than no label at all.

I suspected that someone would misinterpret my analogy for a comparison. Many people confuse the two, and no rational person would accuse the sponsors of prop 37 of being in the same league as the Nazis. Singling out one (method of plant breeding; ethnic group) from the rest (i.e., all the other ones) is unjust. My analogy is perfectly reasonable. It does not compare two intrinically different categories (methods of plant breeding; “races” of people). Your indignation is unwarranted. —————————————————————You are free to disagree with my use of the term “misleading,” but you ought to know that the FDA agrees with me. (I cited an article discussing this matter several comments ago.) The FDA oversees labeling. Good luck enacting prop 37 if it passes.

Despite No on 37s misleading advertisements, which independent fact-checkers have found to be riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations, fabricated quotes, and outright falsehoods, the fact is that the FDA has not taken a position on Prop 37.

But, to be fair, it’s true that at least one former FDA official, Dr. Henry I. Miller, who now works for the right-wing Hoover Institution, has taken a leading role in the No on 37 campaign, helped to draft the official rebuttal to the arguments in favor of Prop 37, and is the main spokesman for No on 37 campaign featured in the GMO-and-pesticide-industry-funded TV ads currently blanketing the airwaves. So, who is this Dr. Miller?

“He’s a founding member of a now defunct tobacco front group that tried to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer, he’s repeatedly called for the reintroduction of DDT – known to cause premature birth, fronted for an oil industry funded climate change denial group for Exxon, claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster “may have benefited from it”, and attacked the US Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs safety while urging it to outsource more of its functions to private industries.”

Just did a bit of research: Joe Mercola has made the largest contribution to the yes on prop 37 campaign. Besides being a vaccine skeptic, he doesn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS and he’s been accused by the FDA of illegal labeling of the products he manufactures. Wikipedia has an illuminating article on him. —- I also came across the fact that the Natural Products Association has come out in opposition to prop 37, and if their analysis is correct, then all of you who support this measure should pray that it fails. Apparently, the proposition defines “natural” in a very idiosyncratic way: anything that has been cooked, milled, pressed, or subject to other processes that virtually ANY food that is not raw has undergone will not be allowed to label itself as “natural”! If this is indeed the case, it brings back memories of the atrociously written Measure T in Humboldt County, a measure to reform campaign financing that indulged in what I shall charitably call “whimsical” definitions (such as: what constitutes “local” organizations). I knew that if the measure passed (and it did — people seem to vote for good intentions, not for workable policy) it would be thrown out by the courts in a trice (and that is what happened). The N.P.A. further states that prop 37 does not specify which government body will oversee enforcement. A minor glitch? Maybe — but the more I learn about prop 37, the more flawed it seems. I don’t live in CA, so I don’t have to live with the consequences of the loopy politics out there, but the state is so large that I’m concerned about spillover. You want our Midwest food manufacturers to increase our food costs so that a particular method of plant breeding will have to be labeled, a potentially onerous requirement, given the many links in food chains these days. Do what you want to one another in the “Golden” state, but do try to keep your laws out of my local grocery store.

Well it was not my intention to Tar Prop 37’s detractors on this blog with Dr. Miller’s misdeeds. The point, which I thought was obvious (but apologize if it wasn’t) relates to the theme pushed by the No on 37 campaign that scientists are overwhelmingly on their side. Miller’s role raises a question: If there is such overwhelming support for their position among unbiased scientists concerned only with the public interest, why would the No on 37 campaign have to resort to using a tobacco-harm-denying, global warming denying DDT enthusiast like Miller as their main scientific spokesperson?

If their support in the scientific community runs so deep, and so wide, then instead of trying to imply that Miller was a Stanford faculty member, a mischaracterization that they had to be asked twice by Stanford, to desist from, why couldn’t they find anyone who is an actual university researcher to make their case? And if government scientists are so thoroughly on their side, why would they choose to highlight the one ex-FDA official with a record for corporate propagandizing on behalf of companies like Phillip Morris and Exxon-Mobil?

We could also ask, why did the No on 37 campaign feel the need to fabricate a quote from the FDA and misappropriate the FDA seal to go along with that fabricated quote, why did they feel the need to falsely claim that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is opposed to Prop 37, and why do they feel the need to continue to send out mailers and air ads that have already been shown by numerous independent fact-checkers to be factually inaccurate and grossly misleading?

Just last night, in an hour and a half of watching TV shows on Hulu, a No on 37 ad featuring Dr. Miller appeared 8 or 9 times, not making any scientific argument, but instead making disingenous and inaccurate points about the various exemptions. A number of misleading comparisons appear on the screen, and the one specific case Miller himself refers to is an outright lie: He says “why the meat in dogfood should be covered, but meat for human consumption is not, makes no sense” which is just a completely false — demonstrably factually false — portrayl of the labeling requirements.

In fact, under Prop 37, meat in dogfood would be treated exactly the same as any other meat, which is that if the meat is from a genetically engineered cow or pig or chicken or fish, or whatever, it would be labeled (at present, there are no genetically engineered animals on the market), but if it is from a non-genetically-engineered animal it is not. If the dog food also has genetically engineered corn or other ingredients in there, then it would have to be labeled, just as any food for human consumption with those ingredients would as well. To say that the meat in dogfood is subject to labeling, but meat for human consumption is not, well that is just a straight-up lie, and Dr. Miller knows it, the No on Prop 37 campaign knows it, and yet they are spending tens of millions of dollars on TV ads featuring this inveterate corporate propagandist to repeat this lie over and over, along with the numerous other outright lies, falsehoods and disingenuous arguments they are spewing at voters, literally tens of millions of times over the last few weeks before the election.

And as no self-respecting propagandist could wage a disinformation program of this magnitude without at least one appeal to blatant xenophobia, the No on 37 campaign falsely claims that genetically engineered foods “from China” would be exempted from the labeling requirements, another outright lie.

You know who else waged massive disinformation campaigns that featured xenophobic appeals? The Nazis, that’s who. Just an analogy, of course, not a comparison. 😉

If I really cared all that much about when “natural” can appear on a package, I might be worried. I do wonder how it will affect products in which the trademark itself contains the word, but I can’t find any reference one way or another.

Show me where the Yes on 37 campaign has run ads portraying Dr. Mercola as the voice of unbiased science, falsely claiming an affiliation to a major research university, and making demonstrably false claims about the specific provisions of Prop 37, and then you’ll have yourself a valid comparison.

The fact is, the No on 37 forces have built their campaign on a foundation of lies, while claiming to protect us from being “misled.” It would be funny if it weren’t so sadly emblematic of our times.

Ok, I can’t let this blatant misinformation campaign to continue without weighing in. Not only is the NPA’s “analysis” incorrect, it shows that they have either not read the text of the initiative or they are following in the footsteps of the rest of the No on 37 campaign and being outright fraudulent in their claims about what 37 covers, what it will cost, and what the motivation is. Erasmus, rather than relying on secondary source materials, I challenge you to actually read the primary source material: the actual initiative.
1. The use of the term “natural” will be outlawed ONLY for processed foods that contain GMOs.
2. The addition of a few words on a product label will not increase food costs. The same claims were made in Europe when labeling was proposed there, but the projected price increases never materialized. Generally, manufacturers do not charge their customers to cover the cost of label changes (did the Olympics label make your cereal more expensive?). Even the state’s own analysis says that the maximum cost would be a few hundred thousand to a million dollars a year, which translates to 3 cents per person in CA. An independent analysis of Proposition 37 conducted by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Emory University School of Law, found that: “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” Among the report’s findings –- backed by empirical literature and historical precedents – is that companies’ fear of losing customers due to increasing grocery prices is a significant deterrent to passing on the “trivial” labeling costs to consumers.http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GE-Food-Act-Costs-Assessment.pdf
3. The claims by the No on 37 campaign that the FDA is against Prop 37 are false. They have been reported to the Department of Justice for fabricating the following quote and affixing the FDA’s seal to their campaign materials: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading’.” Not only did they never say this, the FDA’s conclusion that GMOs and natural foods are “substantially equivalent” was reached by ignoring the recommendations of their own scientists. This is only surprising until you realize that the answer for this disparity lies in the revolving door between corporations and the agencies that are supposed to regulate them. For example, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner of Foods is Michael Taylor, former VP of Monsanto’s Public Policy Division. He has moved back and forth between Monsanto and the USDA/ FDA several times over the last few decades. Does this not seem like conflict of interest to you? Does it not seem a little too much like the fox guarding the henhouse?
4. The initiative very clearly defines Genetic Engineering in terms of the current industry standard techniques for inserting DNA from one species into another. As initiatives are only allowed to cover ONE issue, there is no way that it could have included the methods of irradiation etc that Erasmus keeps pointing out cause mutation. No one is contending that irradiating seeds is good breeding practice. If you feel so strongly about labeling these foods, please, write a ballot initiative in your state and work non-stop for the two years it will take to get it on the ballot and then convince voters that this is information we need to know. Californians would probably be happy to have such an initiative spread to our state.
5. GMOs are the only product ever to have achieved best-selling status based on not being labeled. Generally, the burden of advertising new products falls on the manufacturer. They label these new products to differentiate them from all the other products out there. If the Biotech companies are so proud of their products, and if they are as safe as they contend they are, why wouldn’t they choose to label them?
6. Since GMOs are patented, the companies that own them control who studies them. They control the study design, the length of the study, and the interpretation of the study. This situation is ripe for exploitation. When one looks at the studies done by independent scientists (who in many cases had to make their own GMOs or conduct the studies in secret), the data and the interpretations are quite different. There are well over 300 studies showing negative health effects from GMOs. When you take into account the professional smear campaigns and the character assassination these researchers have to endure, there seems no conceivable reason for them to publish their results other than the conviction that the world needs to know more than they need their jobs.
7. Genetic engineering is not more precise than hybridization techniques. Hybridization combines plants within the same species. Yes, hybridization can produce undesired health results. For example, the hybridization of wheat may be partly responsible for the surging trend of gluten intolerance due to the MUCH higher levels of gluten than ancient varieties. Fortunately, the heirloom varieties are still available. Genetic Engineering on the other hand breaks through natural species barriers. The process of gene insertion through viral or bacterial promoters or a gene gun is more like DNA warfare than traditional breeding. In the process, hundreds of gene expression “switches” can be turned on or off. One of the big health concerns about GMOs is the evidence that the inserted genes are highly promiscuous and have been documented to transfer into the intestinal flora of the humans and animals eating these foods. As a nutritionist I must point out that 80% of our immune function is determined by the balance of our intestinal flora. What might the long term consequences of the production of Bt toxins in our intestines be? Bt kills insects by exploding their stomachs. Bt has been found to interact with human cells. When it is used in organic production it is sprayed on and can be washed off. When it is engineered into a cell, it is part of the plant and is ingested in every bite. Could this have anything to do with the skyrocketing increase in food sensitivities (400% increase coincides with the introduction of GMOs into the food supply) and anaphylactic food reactions (250% increase in hospitalizations, also coinciding with the introduction of GMOs into foods). In the opinion of independent doctors and scientists, these questions alone are enough to make labeling GMOs necessary so that the long term health effects can be tracked and compared. Without labeling, we are all participating in an open-ended untracked feeding experiment that is being conducted without our informed consent. With labeling, we can all choose whether to opt in to the experiment and be a proud part of the test group; or whether to opt out of the experiment and be part of the control group.

As a non-resident of CA, I have no idea what kinds of ads are being run by the two sides. Although I side with Henry Miller on some issues (he makes the news fairly often), I don’t always buy his arguments. I wish Fred would jump in here — it was on his blog that I read that the 8 largest newspapers in CA had come out in opposition to prop 37, and I’d like to know why.————————————————————-tra’s reference to ‘an analogy, not a comparison’ followed by a smile button leads me to wonder how many people fail to understand the difference between the two. This is what the American Heritage Dictionary says about “analogy” (in the discussion under “likeness”) — “ANALOGY is similarity, as of properties or functions, between unlike things that are otherwise not comparable: ‘The operation of a computer presents an interesting analogy to the working of the human brain.'” Thus, anything can be seen as analogous to anything else, and the purpose of an analogy is to illuminate a function or a property. I made clear what I intended to do when I referred to the “human labeling” of 1930s Germany (show how a singling out of one group among many can be seen as unjust — a point that shouldn’t need an analogy, of course, but it appears that many people fail to see why other people consider the reasoning of prop 37 to be defective). I didn’t equate prop 37 supporters with Nazis (duh), and I assume you extend the same courtesy to its opponents. Why you brought the Nazis into the discussion at all is unclear, unless you intend to mock my analogy/comparison distinction, and if that is the case I suspect you didn’t do well on the “analogy” section of the S.A.T.———————————————————————Eric would not be bothered by the removal of the term “natural” from food products that most of have considered “natural”? That’s fine — but does it make sense from a manufacturer’s point of view? Do I not oppose a measure just because “I” won’t be affected by it? I thought one of the reasons you opposed Measure T was the redefinition of “local” to mean “1 % of local population in the case of labor unions and “99%” in the case of corporations.

There are too many examples of faulty reasoning in Ms. Rashall’s screed for a battle-fatigued guy like me to address, and by this point I don’t expect anyone to be swayed by what I or the world’s major scientific bodies have to say. The National Academy of Sciences has a lengthy, on-line discussion of the effects of the various methods of plant-breeding, and if anyone wishes to avoid the hour or two of reading, I can tell you the punch-line: every method has potential serious side-effects and genetic engineering is no more hazardous than the others. If the NAS is wrong, expect a flood of lawsuits against GMO producers. I’ve waited 17 years for ONE successful one , and I can wait a few more. ———————————————————————I’ve already posted comments about the FDA’s take on labeling, and I have this to say to 37’s supporters: don’t say you weren’t warned —- your efforts will probably be in vain. I hope you’re acquiring lots of “self-esteem” by working for this measure — I’d like some good to come out of it, before Prop 37 joins Measure T on the scrap-heap of history.

The point raised about the “natural” label may have some validity. From my own reading of the actual language of the proposition (caveat: I am not a lawyer), it does appear that it potentially could be interpreted as banning the use of the term “all natural” from being used on any foods defined in the proposition as “processed,” independent of whether those processed ingredients are made with GMOs or not. But proponents claim that was not the intent, and that the purpose and language of the law does not lend itself to that interpretation.

But I also agree with Eric that I don’t find this issue particularly worrisome, given that the term “all natural,” as used on food product labels, has become pretty meaningless. Even if the law was interpreted in such a way that foods with processed ingredients couldn’t use the term “all natural” unless they were derived from organically-grown raw ingredients, that wouldn’t be the end of the world.

And while it shouldn’t be surprising that the Natural Products Association, whose members’ business models may rely in part on keeping the term “natural” as inclusive as possible, has come out in opposition to Prop 37, it’s also notable that many natural food producers actively favor Prop 37. I guess that could mean that they are somehow unaware of this provision (though it seems unlikely that you could be unaware of it, if you’re in that business), but I suspect that they either (1) they don’t buy the interpretation that the NPA expresses fear about, or (2) they don’t care about the “natural” label and are willing to jettison it, or (3) they are prepared to use organic sources for their processed ingredients, or (4) some combination of the above.

Yeah, I’m aware of the distinction between a comparison and an analogy. My point is that your choice to use a Nazi / holocaust analogy, rather than any of the innumerable other analogies that you could have made in order to make the same point about “singling out one of a group,” made it seem as if you might have chosen that analogy as a way of (not so?) subtly inviting a comparison. Which, unless I’m mistaken, is usually why people make gratuitous Nazi / holocaust analogies when, in fact, any number of other analogies would have worked as well or better. I think the second most common reason is just plain intellectual laziness.

An interesting link — thanks. Another poorly worded proposition — and people will vote first, then read and think about the consquences. (How many people in CA said: “I didn’t know that 3 strikes applied to non-violent crimes …..” Sigh.) — Doesn’t “that wouldn’t be the end of the world” set the bar rather low? And would non-CA businesses have to remove the word “natural” from packaging? PLEASE: leave the rest of the country alone! We have a pretty good idea of what “natural” means, and milling our wheat does not make it “unnatural” except in the very loosest sense of the word.

tra: the effectiveness (if such there be) of my analogy depends on the reader NOT being Nazi-like in any way —— a Nazi would approve of people-labeling. (After all: what is wrong with “information”? why would a Jew want to hide his identity? Is he ashamed of it? etc. ad nauseam.) If you can think of another case of a government placing a tangible ethnic label on a group, let me know. Apparently, thought processes go haywire whenever the Third Reich is mentioned.

Mentioning China in connection with this measure is “xenophobic” or “demagogic”? To my way of thinking, the example of food from China being exempt from prop 37’s strictures is apposite. (How could anyone prove that a Chinese supplier intentionally misled American consumers about GMO ingredients? How much bigger a loophole could we give Chinese — or Vietnamese or Indian or … etc. — suppliers?). I wonder who is actually being “demagogic” here. (Actually, I think I know — but I’d like to minimize the name-calling.)

Prop 37 labels food, not Jews. Should it be my right to know whether someone is a Jew or not? No. Should it be my right to know if the food that is offered to me at the supermarket is produced through genetic engineering? I think it should — and I don’t think there is any meaningful or important contradiction in believing that on the one hand, food products should be labeled, whereas on the other hand, peoples’ ethnicities should not. I have no difficulty at all making the distinction between these two situations, and so I simply don’t see the value in your analogy.

If you want to believe that singling out “fortune cookies and candy made in China” was not an appeal to xenophobic sentiments, I applaud your optimism… though I doubt it’s well-placed in this case. In any event, the claim is false, since they aren’t just saying that the labeling requirements “could be” circumvented and that the Chinese foods are one example of where that could possibly happen — on the flyer they flatly claim that those specific Chinese foods “would be exempt.”

The flyer is misleading, but only partially so — it’s obvious that Chinese (or any other nationality’s) food has a loophole that doesn’t apply to American producers. That fact may stick in your craw, but it’s undeniable — and inevitable. How can CA food-cops patrol Chinese suppliers?——————————————————-Referring to fortune cookies and candy from China plays on xenophobic sentiments? If you believe that anti-Chinese feeling in your state is widespread, then I imagine that any reference to a Chinese product could be construed that way. I can only speak for myself: when I refer to Chinese imports, I usually do so when price, labor conditions, or quality are involved. No racist “xenophobic” sentiment is implied. I’m sorry if CA has become less tolerant than I remember it being.————————————————————————You evade my chief point — that labeling per se is not wrong,misleading, or unnecessary, but that the manner of doing it makes all the difference. How do you think CA voters would decide this: should crops bred through nuclear-energy induced radiation be labeled? You know very well what people’s instincts would tell them. But prop 37 doesn’t broach that issue (for good , self-interested reasons). Prop 37 implies (to the typical voter) that there are “conventional” and there are “GMO” crops. That is a falsehood, and that is why I oppose it.

“Prop 37 implies (to the typical voter) that there are ‘conventional’ and there are ‘GMO’ crops. That is a falsehood, and that is why I oppose it.”

Well I guess it all comes down to definitions and categories, but I think most people would recognize that there are more “conventional” methods of altering the genetics of food crops, in the sense that traditional selective breeding has been practiced for thousands of years, and hybridizing has been around for centuries, at least. And then there are more novel ways of altering the genetics of food crops, including using radiation and chemical-induced mutations, and the most recent novel method, genetic engineering.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the question of at what point in its adoption, a successful novel approach begins to be regarded as “conventional” and how much time plays into that equation, versus how much the level of adoption plays into it. For example, going strictly by how widely adopted the technique is, we could decide that, at least in the U.S., genetic engineering is already the “conventional” approach to raising some crops, such as corn, soybeans and cotton. So on the narrow question of whether “conventional” and “GMO” are necessarily mutually exclusive categories, I am happy to agree that no, they are not.

But all that is kind of beside the point, since the Proposition doesn’t purport to define “conventional” or ensure that consumers know whether their foods fit that definition, it defines “genetically engineered” and would let consumers know whether or not the products they buy at the supermarket contain genetically engineered foods. Which, as it turns out, is something a whole lot of people would like to know — maybe even enough to pass this inititative despite its corporate opponents spending more than a million dollars a day to spread blatant lies and disinformation about it.

We’ll see what happens — and, as a non-resident of CA, I can’t argue against your final sentence. It is certainly possible that the anti-37 campaign is using some unsavory tactics to persuade voters to align CA with Canada (where partial labeling, as 37 mandates, is forbidden). But if Ms. Rashall’s argumentation is typical of what the pro-37 forces are engaging in, I’d have to accuse your side on this issue of some pretty slippery reasoning also.

Same ol’ story: we lower classes are just too stupid to understand labeling. This is the same argument made by business-elites when the fight to label tobacco as causing cancer was going on. The corps saw a threat to a few pennies of profit and went on the attack. The method is exactly the same, the general population is just too uneducated and ignorant to deal with information. I will just have to take my chances. I’m voting yes on #37.
I’ve been voting since 1976, and when I get confused about all the “legalisms” and double-negatives in propositions, I look to who it is that supports them or not.
Thank you “Erasmus” for helping me make up my mind, but “screed?” Sorry pal, but your powdered-wig is showing with remarks like that.

“How do you think CA voters would decide this: should crops bred through nuclear-energy induced radiation be labeled?”

They’d probably vote with me and decide to label such crops. Then, the public would be able to decide if it really mattered to them. I’d like to think that after an extensive period of public explanation, most of the public would decide “no problem,” as I believe it did with the “radiation” threat alleged against smart meters. But if much of the public were to decide “big problem,” then I guess we wouldn’t have as many items for sale in California supermarkets. Oh well. Vox populi and all that.

According to the research I did yesterday on prop 37, there is a divide between environmentalists and scientists on this (with some overlap, of course). My years in CA taught me to trust scientists more than enviros, who often descend to fear-mongering. You have reached the opposite conclusion. And if you truly think that prop 37 will give an impartial understanding of how a food product was created, you are being deceived. If my lengthy series of comments haven’t convinced you, if you refuse to read what our most eminent scientists (e.g. James Watson, Nina Fedoroff, Richard Dawkins) say on the subject, if you ignore what UC-Davis scientists are doing in this field …… then —– bask in your self-righteousness and pretend that I’m wearing a powdered wig.

I’ve heard some pretty good arguments in favor of prop 37, and some good arguments against 37. I’m still voting for labels. And, yeah, I’ll still eat GMO corn and soy, and other stuff. All I want is labels.

If they can label “Free Range Chicken”,”Grass Fed Beef”, Hormone Free Milk”. and so on, they can label GMOs. Who knows the corporate ducks sidelining as schoolteachers might like to buy it because it is GMO and somehow better.

The one thing that I am most curious about…. Did anyone in this miasma of rhetoric change their minds???

Not me Ernie. I pretty much had my mind made up on this one from the start though.

Erasmus, you are horse with blinders on this issue. Its not about hybridization, selective breeding, or the intrinsic safety of consuming GMOs. We are talking about trangenic crops and where they exist in the food supply. The argument about centuries of genetic modification of plants is totally bunk in this case. Its like comparing producing a child via sex with a test tube baby. Both alter genes, but the former is clearly the ‘natural’ method. The test tube baby requires a ton of expensive tech to keep it alive and viable, as GMOs rely on heavy herbicide and pesticide treatments, and in some cases more water than conventional crops.

I want to make a choice that promotes sustainable agriculture. Currently, the decision to use GMO in America is not pointed at that goal. Its pointed at money, and at the expense of the environment. This bill doesn’t address that issue, but it allows me to exercise my right to have purchasing power – which I will use to buy products that dont really on intensive chemical use when I can.

You seem to be advocating for cooperate secrecy. As if we can trust the Soylent Corporation.

I knoe one thing. I’m completely bored with the prop 37 debate. I look forward to more research and more discussion of the science after the election. Let the consumers know. Then let’s discuss it further.

Very few of my intelligent friends engage in internet debate, and when I recount some of the exchanges I’ve had, they laugh at my willingness to subject myself to the comments that rain down from cyberspace. I’ve been called a “corporate duck” — the equivalent, in 2012, of being a “nigger-lover.” I’m advocating corporate secrecy when I call for full disclosure on labels, when I oppose the selective labeling that 37 calls for. How does one respond to such hokum? Does quoting ‘The Economist’ serve any purpose? Does anyone understand how this excerpt from a recent article applies to 37? —– “Those who turn their noses up at ‘genetically modified’ food seldom seem to consider that all crops are genetically modified. The difference between a wild plant and one that serves some human end is a lot of selective breeding – the picking and combining over the years of mutations that result in bigger seeds, tastier fruit or whatever else is required./// Nor, these days, are those mutations there by accident. They are, rather, deliberately induced, usually by exposing seeds to radiation….” And the article goes on to describe the “particle accelerator” and the “heavy ions” being used, producing “between 10 and 100 times as many mutations as the traditional method….” (May 5, 2012 issue). —- Twice, over the last few days, I’ve pointed out to friends over the phone this aspect of plant breeding, and I’ve stated that the proposed measure in CA would not require the labeling of what The Economist calls “Nuclear-powered crops.” My friends understood the point I was making, and they agreed that a “label” that failed to tell consumers about this common method of plant breeding was fatally flawed. —- And I”M being accused of promoting corporate secrecy when I oppose a label law that doesn’t inform voters of the origin of many of their edibles?! ——————————————————————Perhaps my internet-avoiding friends are wiser than I am.

Well, first it’s Nazis, so thinly veiled, and now it’s another well-verboten n_ word.

Along with mythic ‘Greenies’, none of which have addressed you here, though I wonder sometimes if the Kneeland prairie folks might tune in.

Erasmus, I’ve held my peace, and hoped mainly that your students would learn the better lessons of what’s gone on here.

Maybe you can learn some of them yourself, but that’s up to you, as all things for a person are. None of us humans are so simple about anything, but maybe a lot of the problem goes away if we can stop wanting to ‘win’ so badly.

Actually, I was taught a fine lesson about this in school debating, so there you go.

In fact I was winning, while new at the game, and had to learn how it was right even in a competition (or especially there) to pull back, let the other voices have their points, and put an evident value on being kind. It does open the discussion, and thus everyone wins, whoever gets a trophy.

You, Narration have been utterly kind, and I thank you. As for some of the other participants in this discussion ——- I can’t help thinking of the two things that Einstein thought were infinite (and he wasn’t sure of one of them).